IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:41 PM   #441
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Perhaps their aim should be to produce an algebra that can be used to evaluate logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean...ra_%28logic%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus

Logic is a field of study in Philosophy, in case you didn't already know.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.

Last edited by joesixpack; 2nd December 2012 at 06:43 PM.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:47 PM   #442
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
I'll play this game with you for one more round, but I don't place a very high probability on the theory that you have any genuine desire to learn something. I think you've committed yourself to philosophy-bashing at this stage and to try to save face you'll be contributing nothing but vacuous ridicule from this point forward.

I’d wager a years supply of sack cloth that you’re 100% on that one. Quite obviously there’s a herd at JREF who are here for nothing more than entertainment (thinking that’s what the ‘E’ actually represents).

When it comes to philosophy…I’m guessing that it’s simply insecurity. Unlike genetics, quantum mechanics, theoretical mathematics etc. etc. all of which can be dismissed as esoteric academic subjects…philosophy is about human beings (how we think, what we’re capable of thinking about, what thinking is, etc.). These folks simply don’t know how to deal with the indisputable fact that there are things they simply do not know how to know about themselves (and how / whether these things matter). Vacuous ridicule simply = defense mechanism. IOW…” I don’t understand that…so I’ll pretend I don’t need to.”

Found this on another thread. Russell. A reasonable description of the value of philosophy.

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:47 PM   #443
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Well, right off the bat it looks like the person who made that little graphic doesn't actually know what metaphysics is.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:56 PM   #444
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Yes, old George Boole and logic are well known in scientific circles, I hear they are even explored in maths and computer sciences.

But if philosophy could use such systems, why do they still use archaic language which must cause even those steeped in the art some problems.

The arcane language in mathematics, mentioned above, is necessary because the very concepts have no equivalent in normal discourse, but as has been shown here, that isn't the case for philosophical statements.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 07:09 PM   #445
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post

The arcane language in mathematics, mentioned above, is necessary because the very concepts have no equivalent in normal discourse, but as has been shown here, that isn't the case for philosophical statements.
Oh don't I wish that were so. I'm actually reading Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" at the moment. It's quite wordy and very difficult to understand. In an effort to help me get the meaning of it I am paraphrasing it. Guess what? It's damned difficult to condense the meaning into small sentences with small words. I've written several pages and haven't gotten past the intro yet. It's complicated because the ideas that he's discussing are complicated.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 07:46 PM   #446
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Oh don't I wish that were so. I'm actually reading Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" at the moment. It's quite wordy and very difficult to understand. In an effort to help me get the meaning of it I am paraphrasing it. Guess what? It's damned difficult to condense the meaning into small sentences with small words. I've written several pages and haven't gotten past the intro yet. It's complicated because the ideas that he's discussing are complicated.

Complicated.

…as I said…there are simply those who don’t know how to deal with the obvious fact that their own life is way way more complicated than their ability to understand it. Vacuous ridicule. Basic defense mechanism.

So what does that mean...that you don't understand you? Does anybody ...actually understand themself? Is it possible? Is there evidence either way? Is there evidence that there is something to understand (most religions / philosophies / traditions refer to it...'know thyself' etc.)...that there is something that can be...that anyone, potentially, possesses the ability to do so?

Odd that it’s often those with experience in the hard sciences who resort to this tactic (ridicule). Like…the construction of the universe…that can be virtually incomprehensibly complex…but when it comes to human psychology / meaning…that’s got to be intelligible to a two year-old. It seems that when it gets personal…standards become rather malleable.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 08:40 PM   #447
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
You didn't explain why consciousness is absurd, or meaningless. Are you just taking that for granted? Why would
crossing the Rubicon be involved? A google of ''post textual narrative'' produced this load of cobblers:
I guess I wasn't clear enough to make myself understood to you. I have no idea what that passage about rubicons and consciousness means, and it seems quite plausible that it's the product of the postmodernism generator.

As joesixpack said, real postmodernist writing isn't usually quite that bad, although almost all of the time in my opinion it does boil down to what Chomsky referred to as truisms, errors and nonsense, and with some legwork you could easily find any amount of abject nonsense from that field of philosophy.

However based on the fact you snipped all of our previous discussion I don't think you currently have any intention of participating in good faith in a discussion where you might learn something. Goodbye.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 12:20 AM   #448
Hydrogen Hypothesis
Student
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 39
Albert Ellis, who created rational-emotive behavior therapy (or "REBT", a branch of cognitive behavior therapy) credits the philosophy of ancient Stoicism as his inspiration for its start. Like CB therapy, its focus is that irrational beliefs are the cause of a person's undo suffering.
Quote:
For example, Ellis' first major publication on rational therapy describes the philosophical basis of REBT as the principle that a person is rarely affected emotionally by outside things but rather by ‘his perceptions, attitudes, or internalized sentences about outside things and events.' ..."The truths of Stoicism were perhaps best set forth by Epictetus, who in the first century A.D. wrote in the Enchiridion: “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them.” Shakespeare, many centuries later, rephrased this thought in Hamlet: “There’s nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.” -from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationa...havior_Therapy
CB therapy and REBT are empirically validated, despite REBT's obvious philosophical roots.

Last edited by Hydrogen Hypothesis; 3rd December 2012 at 12:25 AM.
Hydrogen Hypothesis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 03:05 AM   #449
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
I’d wager a years supply of sack cloth that you’re 100% on that one. Quite obviously there’s a herd at JREF who are here for nothing more than entertainment (thinking that’s what the ‘E’ actually represents).

When it comes to philosophy…I’m guessing that it’s simply insecurity. Unlike genetics, quantum mechanics, theoretical mathematics etc. etc. all of which can be dismissed as esoteric academic subjects…philosophy is about human beings (how we think, what we’re capable of thinking about, what thinking is, etc.). These folks simply don’t know how to deal with the indisputable fact that there are things they simply do not know how to know about themselves (and how / whether these things matter). Vacuous ridicule simply = defense mechanism. IOW…” I don’t understand that…so I’ll pretend I don’t need to.”

Found this on another thread. Russell. A reasonable description of the value of philosophy.

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect
Nice quote from Bertrand, there.
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 03:13 AM   #450
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Oh my god this is my favorite thread ever. I haven't read any of the posts except the OP, but that's because I know I'm already right about everything. I *********** hate philosophy with a passion that is so strong I think I'm evolved to hate it, naturally just guys who aren't ******** and philosophers get laid more, straight up.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


more work less talk eh?
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 04:01 AM   #451
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Like most of us I suppose, I hate BS masquerading as philosophy.

Allow me to illustrate my point from a thread I participated in. This was the response of a particularly sad hippy:

"Consciousness is more than the sum of one's memories.

It is the experience.

Memories are like dreams, they can be three dimensional. They can also change. They include not only sights and sounds, but feelings and reactions. They fade and they change.

Conscious comes before all things. People have always asked what came first, the chicken or the egg. The answer is consciousness came first and all things spring from that.

The difference between information and knowledge is the presence of a working and reactive mind. The difference between memory and data is the presence of the one who experiences, feels and learns.

Consciousness exists without "memory." It manifests memory. It exists without data and information. It manifests data and information.

Consciousness exists because it must exist and cannot NOT exist because it is impossible for "nothing" to exist."
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 04:18 AM   #452
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Goodbye.
Hwyl nawr!
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 04:28 AM   #453
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Like most of us I suppose, I hate BS masquerading as philosophy.

Allow me to illustrate my point from a thread I participated in. This was the response of a particularly sad hippy:

"Consciousness is more than the sum of one's memories.

It is the experience.

Memories are like dreams, they can be three dimensional. They can also change. They include not only sights and sounds, but feelings and reactions. They fade and they change.

Conscious comes before all things. People have always asked what came first, the chicken or the egg. The answer is consciousness came first and all things spring from that.

The difference between information and knowledge is the presence of a working and reactive mind. The difference between memory and data is the presence of the one who experiences, feels and learns.

Consciousness exists without "memory." It manifests memory. It exists without data and information. It manifests data and information.

Consciousness exists because it must exist and cannot NOT exist because it is impossible for "nothing" to exist."
That reminds me a great deal of the threads where people make nonsensical physics claims. You get the feeling they have something in mind, some underlying idea, but either the notion is nuts or they can't construct a formal argument.

In the end, for both physics and philosophy, the remedy is: get more education in a discipline before you attempt a meaningful contribution.

[edit to add: I just noticed that in both forms, the posts are heavy on assertion and very light on any supporting elements.]
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 04:49 AM   #454
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Is this what makes people so uncomfortable with philosophy? The looseness and the lack of focus on externally valid conclusions?

For me, the recipe of asking questions and getting answers is very limited. The form of the question generates the answer. I prefer the freedom of exploring ideas for the sake of exploring ideas with no preconceived destination in mind. Much like the runner who finishes her daily exercise at the same place she started, I enjoy and find benefit in the process, not the destination.

Perhaps this is a "style of mind" thing. Consider how we are educated in a system where the answers are in the back of the book (or at least the odd-numbered answers). Even when we can't derive some result, we are confident an answer exists, some correct answer is there to find.

Translate this mechanism beyond mere schoolwork and some remain convinced that there are still answers in the back of the book. Only now, the book is nature and the answers take a bit more work to dredge up.

I find little appeal in this. When I was in school, I enjoyed finding other questions, questions where the answers weren't in the book and couldn't be found in the larger library of nature. Why? Because answers are sterile things that kill thinking. And thinking is an enjoyable activity.

Should I then disparage all of science as deficient? Hardly. Because scientists spend a great deal of time searching for useful questions and exploring. At some point, they have to find measurable results and publish, but in-between times, they ruminate and wonder and try to think useful things. That's an exciting part of the enterprise and not the rote empirical testing that mischaracterizes what scientists actually do. In practice, they don't just sit around gathering factoids and putting them into little boxes. There is purpose and intent. They ask more general questions and distill out that small portion that is practical to test. They do something akin to philosophy instead: they seek explanations, not simply answers to questions.

Philosophers and scientists have the same ultimate goal. Everyone wants to understand how reality actually is. The difference comes in when the scientist finds no way forward because they cannot figure out a useful research program. This is why we get hybrid sciences like psychology or sociology -- fields we refer to as "soft" sciences. Rather more opinion and argument comes into play and rather less direct measurement. And at the outside extreme, we have philosophy, where the conceptual can take up entire sub-disciplines. The rules are different. What you can say is different.

Science, as characterized in this thread, leaves out a critical element of what's actually going on-- the scientist herself. It gets touched on in things like: What is the meaning of a probability function in QM? Is that a real thing or just a description of a real thing? And if it is a real thing, what sort of thing is it?

But mostly, these kinds of questions are troubling but not ultimately important when we want to add another answer to the solutions at the back of the book. And this brings up one other critical difference. When a scientist is trained, they learn, by rote, all that has come before. Their job will be to extend this linear script.

When a philosopher is trained, they learn what has come before, but must put themselves into the mix -- their own opinions matter and there is a process of self discovery. Early on, philosophers are asked to add their input to whatever Kant or Hume wrote, to compare and contrast, to offer an opinion and support it.

I can say that I discovered I was an atheist, that something about my composition directs me to that stance. But I could never say I discovered I was a biologist. In some sense, science would like to remove the human element. Not so in philosophy. Without scientists, nature would still be what nature is. Not philosophy. Without philosophers, the enterprise is dead.
I think the problem is not that philosophy doesn't provide answers it's the pretense that philosophy does or can provide answers or that somehow questions without answers are not only legitimate questions but are actually THE important questions and that science is somehow terminally deficient in being unable to answer them.

Sometimes just thinking about stuff can be enjoyable but we shouldn't start pretending that somehow its important and meaningful or that the process is helping us understand something fundamental about reality.

I can ponder till I'm blue in the face where I would go if I could fly or what I would do if I was invisible but it won't change the fact I can't fly and people can see me.

Philosophy and religion share the same problem for me. They are introspective disciplines that do not and cannot expand our knowledge of reality.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Don't forget, what is being contrasted in this thread are the cartoon versions of these things, not the actual disciplines. We shouldn't abandon the game mid-play.

Here's the tl;dr version of my previous blatherings:

The philosophical question raised in this thread and the answer--

Q: Of what use is philosophy to science?

A: It can point out the limits of the scientific method.
But it doesn't. It points out silly questions and then claims the scientific method is limited by not being able to answer them. That's not the same thing.


Originally Posted by marplots View Post
That reminds me a great deal of the threads where people make nonsensical physics claims. You get the feeling they have something in mind, some underlying idea, but either the notion is nuts or they can't construct a formal argument.

In the end, for both physics and philosophy, the remedy is: get more education in a discipline before you attempt a meaningful contribution.

[edit to add: I just noticed that in both forms, the posts are heavy on assertion and very light on any supporting elements.]
There does seem to be a tendency in many areas to use verbosity to cover for a lack of content. Science can alleviate this somewhat since there are real physical things which underlie the words , religion and philosophy generally don't have this advantage - words are all they have.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 05:01 AM   #455
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
There does seem to be a tendency in many areas to use verbosity to cover for a lack of content. Science can alleviate this somewhat since there are real physical things which underlie the words , religion and philosophy generally don't have this advantage - words are all they have.
Well, words generally don't have to be physical objects for them to be useful. Why dismiss them?
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 05:25 AM   #456
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
I think the problem is not that philosophy doesn't provide answers it's the pretense that philosophy does or can provide answers or that somehow questions without answers are not only legitimate questions but are actually THE important questions and that science is somehow terminally deficient in being unable to answer them.
"How should we live?", "What should we value?" and "How do we want the world to be in the future?" seem like pretty important questions to me, and no, science alone can't answer them. That's not pretence, it's a fact that falls directly out of the nature of science.

Philosophy is the activity of thinking logically about such questions, which is the least worst way to think about them I am aware of.

Philosophy won't "provide answers" in that no, it's not going to show you The Ultimate Moral Truth or anything like that. Go to religion if you want pat answers so you don't have to do any thinking for yourself. However the answers you arrive at through philosophy might be more useful or consistent than beliefs you arrive at by other means.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 05:47 AM   #457
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
(snipped)
But it doesn't. It points out silly questions and then claims the scientific method is limited by not being able to answer them. That's not the same thing.
Here's an example of what I meant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

It is a criticism on the nature of evidence. I don't think it's a silly question to ask, "What constitutes good evidence and how does evidence support a theory?"

It is a question about the scientific method, not one amenable to scientific analysis or experimentation directly. On the other hand, if such questions are silly, then I would have to agree that silly questions don't need to be asked.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 06:30 AM   #458
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
"How should we live?", "What should we value?" and "How do we want the world to be in the future?" seem like pretty important questions to me, and no, science alone can't answer them. That's not pretence, it's a fact that falls directly out of the nature of science.

Philosophy is the activity of thinking logically about such questions, which is the least worst way to think about them I am aware of.

Philosophy won't "provide answers" in that no, it's not going to show you The Ultimate Moral Truth or anything like that. Go to religion if you want pat answers so you don't have to do any thinking for yourself. However the answers you arrive at through philosophy might be more useful or consistent than beliefs you arrive at by other means.
So philosophy is nothing more than Just Asking Questions?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 06:42 AM   #459
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Here's an example of what I meant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

It is a criticism on the nature of evidence. I don't think it's a silly question to ask, "What constitutes good evidence and how does evidence support a theory?"

It is a question about the scientific method, not one amenable to scientific analysis or experimentation directly. On the other hand, if such questions are silly, then I would have to agree that silly questions don't need to be asked.
Not all ravens are black some are gold and purple.
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7...ltimore_Ravens

Then there's albino ones:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...or+bird+albino

So the statement that "all ravens are black" is incorrect. How does asserting an incorrect statement lead to an answer to "What constitutes good evidence and how does evidence support a theory?"

BTW: if the paradox used correct terms the green apple is a "not raven", there was a bit of slight of word used there.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 06:45 AM   #460
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Well, words generally don't have to be physical objects for them to be useful. Why dismiss them?
I don't think I did. What I said was that the tendency towards verbiage is greater when you are dealing with words rather than physical things. You can spend all day trying to describe the exacty nature of a rock in intricate detail and get nowhere near, or you can hit someone on the head with it and get the point across exactly.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
"How should we live?", "What should we value?" and "How do we want the world to be in the future?" seem like pretty important questions to me, and no, science alone can't answer them. That's not pretence, it's a fact that falls directly out of the nature of science.

Philosophy is the activity of thinking logically about such questions, which is the least worst way to think about them I am aware of.

Philosophy won't "provide answers" in that no, it's not going to show you The Ultimate Moral Truth or anything like that. Go to religion if you want pat answers so you don't have to do any thinking for yourself. However the answers you arrive at through philosophy might be more useful or consistent than beliefs you arrive at by other means.
You admit 'philosophy won't provide answers' so it's failing the test already. The questions are faulty.

'Thinking logically' is great.... but you can't logic your way to 'better answers' if you don't test them against reality. At that point you are doing science.

The idea that you can sit in a darkened room and reason your way to 'how should we live?' is bogus. It's that kind of bogus claim that discredits philosophy in my eyes.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Here's an example of what I meant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

It is a criticism on the nature of evidence. I don't think it's a silly question to ask, "What constitutes good evidence and how does evidence support a theory?".
It seems more like a philosophical question that only begets further philosophical questions. The scientific answer to 'What constitutes good evidence?' is 'the evidence that leads to conclusions that best fit with observable reality', real scientists doing real science on a daily basis don't particularly stop to think about the colour of non-ravens, they've got work to do.

If that question is truly important then tell me what would change if it were truly resolved to the satisfaction of philosophers? Would my painkiller stop working because the scientist that developed it was wrong about the true nature of good evidence?

Also, note that all you have done is provide an example of something that philosophers have been unable to answer satisfactorily while science has not stopped to wait for the answer. I'd make that at best a no-score draw in terms of whether either is better placed to address the question.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 07:11 AM   #461
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So philosophy is nothing more than Just Asking Questions?

So where are we now tsig???.....23,181 posts…and still nothing to say.

It might help if you actually read the whole sentence instead of merely looking for the shortest route to ammunition for your bankrupt positions. Here…I’ll do it for you:

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Philosophy won't "provide answers" in that no, it's not going to show you The Ultimate Moral Truth or anything like that.

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
I don't think I did. What I said was that the tendency towards verbiage is greater when you are dealing with words rather than physical things. You can spend all day trying to describe the exacty nature of a rock in intricate detail and get nowhere near, or you can hit someone on the head with it and get the point across exactly.

You admit 'philosophy won't provide answers' so it's failing the test already. The questions are faulty.

'Thinking logically' is great.... but you can't logic your way to 'better answers' if you don't test them against reality. At that point you are doing science.

The idea that you can sit in a darkened room and reason your way to 'how should we live?' is bogus. It's that kind of bogus claim that discredits philosophy in my eyes.

It seems more like a philosophical question that only begets further philosophical questions. The scientific answer to 'What constitutes good evidence?' is 'the evidence that leads to conclusions that best fit with observable reality', real scientists doing real science on a daily basis don't particularly stop to think about the colour of non-ravens, they've got work to do.

If that question is truly important then tell me what would change if it were truly resolved to the satisfaction of philosophers? Would my painkiller stop working because the scientist that developed it was wrong about the true nature of good evidence?

Also, note that all you have done is provide an example of something that philosophers have been unable to answer satisfactorily while science has not stopped to wait for the answer. I'd make that at best a no-score draw in terms of whether either is better placed to address the question.

What is amazing is just how incredibly juvenile so much of the opposition to philosophy actually is. The highlighted part…for example. Apart from being blindingly simplistic…it’s plain wrong. Folks have been doing exactly that for millennia…in lighted rooms as well. So it’s not…like…bogus…dude! Life…and the world…are incredibly complex things. They are functionally complex and they are conceptually complex. There are enormous issues that require attention in our lives and societies that science has minimal ability to adjudicate. Until you understand why that is, it might actually benefit you to refrain from making bogus ascertains that are, well, bogus.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 07:17 AM   #462
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
What is amazing is just how incredibly juvenile so much of the opposition to philosophy actually is. The highlighted part…for example. Apart from being blindingly simplistic…it’s plain wrong. Folks have been doing exactly that for millennia…in lighted rooms as well. So it’s not…like…bogus…dude! Life…and the world…are incredibly complex things. They are functionally complex and they are conceptually complex. There are enormous issues that require attention in our lives and societies that science has minimal ability to adjudicate. Until you understand why that is, it might actually benefit you to refrain from making bogus ascertains that are, well, bogus.
Perhaps then you would be so kind as to furnish us with an example of such an issue that not only has science failed to address but that philosophy has taken up the reins and steered us to a successful conclusion?

Your post seems decidely content free in that respect.

You may also wish to reflect on whether what people have been doing for millenia is sitting around ruminating on the true nature of things, or whether they've actually been going out and getting on with their lives and which of these approaches has furnished us with most data on reality.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 07:22 AM   #463
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
So where are we now tsig???.....23,181 posts…and still nothing to say.

It might help if you actually read the whole sentence instead of merely looking for the shortest route to ammunition for your bankrupt positions. Here…I’ll do it for you:







What is amazing is just how incredibly juvenile so much of the opposition to philosophy actually is. The highlighted part…for example. Apart from being blindingly simplistic…it’s plain wrong. Folks have been doing exactly that for millennia…in lighted rooms as well. So it’s not…like…bogus…dude! Life…and the world…are incredibly complex things. They are functionally complex and they are conceptually complex. There are enormous issues that require attention in our lives and societies that science has minimal ability to adjudicate. Until you understand why that is, it might actually benefit you to refrain from making bogus ascertains that are, well, bogus.
If they've been doing it for thousands of years and still haven't got any answers then maybe they're not doing it right.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 07:23 AM   #464
Jorghnassen
Illuminator
 
Jorghnassen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
It seems more like a philosophical question that only begets further philosophical questions. The scientific answer to 'What constitutes good evidence?' is 'the evidence that leads to conclusions that best fit with observable reality', real scientists doing real science on a daily basis don't particularly stop to think about the colour of non-ravens, they've got work to do.
Oh hai. I work with scientists all the time. They often have very simple questions that they have no clue how to answer. They often have data they have no clue how to analyze. Part of my job is to translate their scientific question (which is often not actually properly stated, or entirely formed into a coherent statement) into mathematical terms, organize the data and analyze it in a way that makes sense in the original context, and then explain what the results mean in the language of the original scientist. It often gets quite complicated, and sometimes it literally becomes philosophical. "Should we reset the clock or not when an event occurs? How does that affect the model? Does it makes sense in the medical context of the problem? How do I translate it back to the doctors who simply want to know whether they're sending the patient back to work too early or not?" Mathematics and statistics are inherently philosophical in nature (frequentist vs bayesian is a classic example, and don't get me started on wannabe philosophers babbling about bayesian stats they do not understand), but they are the backbone of science. Without the abstractions of math and stats, no science for you. In short, poopooing philosophical reasoning is nothing short of poopooing science. It's in part because scientists don't dig into the underlying assumptions of their experiments, the statistical methods they use and the way they interpret the analysis that a lot of published findings get disproven later.
__________________
"Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert
"My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast
Jorghnassen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 07:38 AM   #465
Blue Bayou
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 29
Epictetus/ Marcus Aurelius

Please read the musings of these 2 great Stoics, then tell me Philosophy has no use.....
It is only when Philosophy becomes the excuse to lay about all day, "thinking" and being unproductive that it becomes an albatross.
BB
Blue Bayou is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 07:40 AM   #466
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by Jorghnassen View Post
Oh hai. I work with scientists all the time. They often have very simple questions that they have no clue how to answer. They often have data they have no clue how to analyze. Part of my job is to translate their scientific question (which is often not actually properly stated, or entirely formed into a coherent statement) into mathematical terms, organize the data and analyze it in a way that makes sense in the original context, and then explain what the results mean in the language of the original scientist. It often gets quite complicated, and sometimes it literally becomes philosophical. "Should we reset the clock or not when an event occurs? How does that affect the model? Does it makes sense in the medical context of the problem? How do I translate it back to the doctors who simply want to know whether they're sending the patient back to work too early or not?" Mathematics and statistics are inherently philosophical in nature (frequentist vs bayesian is a classic example, and don't get me started on wannabe philosophers babbling about bayesian stats they do not understand), but they are the backbone of science. Without the abstractions of math and stats, no science for you. In short, poopooing philosophical reasoning is nothing short of poopooing science. It's in part because scientists don't dig into the underlying assumptions of their experiments, the statistical methods they use and the way they interpret the analysis that a lot of published findings get disproven later.
I don't see how any of the questions you gave as examples are 'philosophical' but perhaps I'm just lacking the context. I find the idea that maths and stats are really philosophy a stretch too far in the context of what I was commenting about which were the 'unanswerable questions' which were being proposed as being outwith the purvey of science.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:02 AM   #467
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Jorghnassen View Post
Oh hai. I work with scientists all the time. They often have very simple questions that they have no clue how to answer. They often have data they have no clue how to analyze. Part of my job is to translate their scientific question (which is often not actually properly stated, or entirely formed into a coherent statement) into mathematical terms, organize the data and analyze it in a way that makes sense in the original context, and then explain what the results mean in the language of the original scientist. It often gets quite complicated, and sometimes it literally becomes philosophical. "Should we reset the clock or not when an event occurs? How does that affect the model? Does it makes sense in the medical context of the problem? How do I translate it back to the doctors who simply want to know whether they're sending the patient back to work too early or not?" Mathematics and statistics are inherently philosophical in nature (frequentist vs bayesian is a classic example, and don't get me started on wannabe philosophers babbling about bayesian stats they do not understand), but they are the backbone of science. Without the abstractions of math and stats, no science for you. In short, poopooing philosophical reasoning is nothing short of poopooing science. It's in part because scientists don't dig into the underlying assumptions of their experiments, the statistical methods they use and the way they interpret the analysis that a lot of published findings get disproven later.
Why are they inherently philosophical? This is an assertion made several times in this thread and the riposte that they are investigated, analysed and progressed by scientists and mathematicians is continually ignored. The claim that everything is philosophical has no more validity than the claim 'god is love'.

As for advising scientists on statistical procedures, it depends on what procedures and what else they are doing. Particle physicists for instance will learn the mathematics required for their own purposes.

Biologists and chemists will advise medics on clinical trial protocols, neither claims that medicine is purely biology or chemistry, so why do philosophers need to keep making the claim that everything is theirs?
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:16 AM   #468
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jorghnassen View Post
Oh hai. I work with scientists all the time. They often have very simple questions that they have no clue how to answer. They often have data they have no clue how to analyze. Part of my job is to translate their scientific question (which is often not actually properly stated, or entirely formed into a coherent statement) into mathematical terms, organize the data and analyze it in a way that makes sense in the original context, and then explain what the results mean in the language of the original scientist. It often gets quite complicated, and sometimes it literally becomes philosophical. "Should we reset the clock or not when an event occurs? How does that affect the model? Does it makes sense in the medical context of the problem? How do I translate it back to the doctors who simply want to know whether they're sending the patient back to work too early or not?" Mathematics and statistics are inherently philosophical in nature (frequentist vs bayesian is a classic example, and don't get me started on wannabe philosophers babbling about bayesian stats they do not understand), but they are the backbone of science. Without the abstractions of math and stats, no science for you. In short, poopooing philosophical reasoning is nothing short of poopooing science. It's in part because scientists don't dig into the underlying assumptions of their experiments, the statistical methods they use and the way they interpret the analysis that a lot of published findings get disproven later.
Those questions look like they should be answered on the basis of the method used and the results desired rather than philosophy.

Oh wait, you'll tell me that that too is philosophy.

ETA: if the scientists are as clueless as you portray them how do they keep their positions? Would they agree with you about this?

Last edited by tsig; 3rd December 2012 at 09:18 AM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:32 AM   #469
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
I'll weigh in for the OP and say that I don't like philosophy either. Philosophy led us to science because science is better.

It doesn't mean you can't discuss things and have opinions, but claiming it has any significance to reality is worthless.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:56 AM   #470
llwyd
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,133
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
I'll play this game with you for one more round, but I don't place a very high probability on the theory that you have any genuine desire to learn something. I think you've committed yourself to philosophy-bashing at this stage and to try to save face you'll be contributing nothing but vacuous ridicule from this point forward.
Yeah, I have to say I find this joking around and general know-nothing attitudes bit embarrasing. I don't feel a particular need to defend the great philosophers of the Western tradition, just as I don't feel a need to defend a Shakespeare or a George Eliot on the literature side (and one certainly could make lots of know-nothing jokes about them too). I don't find continental philosophy appealing either, but I think it has contributed some valuable insights about the nature of language and structures of culture. Establishing facts about the physical world is very important but also fairly simple and straightforward business - we are passionate beings, and our experience of being - so briefly - in the world is one wild journey, and the most important things we have to show for it is the best literature, best art and best philosophy we have produced. Natural science competes in an other but still quite important category, and I would say that some parts of it are almost as exhilarating as the greatest art and the greatest philosophy (modern physics comes to mind - such a strange, strange universe we inhabit).
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:01 AM   #471
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
Science is like a trust fund kid who doesn't understand why other people work.
This was posted in a thread at the beginning to this year, and it is both surprising and not surprising that the same people who were denigrating philosophy in that are using the same unmodified arguments in this thread.

Last edited by mijopaalmc; 3rd December 2012 at 10:03 AM.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:03 AM   #472
llwyd
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,133
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It doesn't mean you can't discuss things and have opinions, but claiming it has any significance to reality is worthless.
Well, why should significance to reality be the criteria? Anyway, surely natural science has no significance to reality either - reality would be still there, I suppose, even if no-one would study it. Natural science establish facts but it can't really establish meanings. What is the meaning of the universe, what is the meaning of reality? Should we make any further conclusions on the strange findings of modern physics? Sometimes the haters of literature and philosophy seem so incurious, so matter of fact about our experience of being in the world that they make everything sound very self-evident, very mundane, flat... But if you look around, our brief lifes are anything but flat, anything but mundane - we are, we live, we love, we die, bright flames in the huge darkness. Natural science is mostly mute about that, literature isn't, art isn't, philosophy isn't. Our culture would be infinitely more boring and more shallow without them.
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:17 AM   #473
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by llwyd View Post
Well, why should significance to reality be the criteria? Anyway, surely natural science has no significance to reality either - reality would be still there, I suppose, even if no-one would study it. Natural science establish facts but it can't really establish meanings. What is the meaning of the universe, what is the meaning of reality? Should we make any further conclusions on the strange findings of modern physics? Sometimes the haters of literature and philosophy seem so incurious, so matter of fact about our experience of being in the world that they make everything sound very self-evident, very mundane, flat... But if you look around, our brief lifes are anything but flat, anything but mundane - we are, we live, we love, we die, bright flames in the huge darkness. Natural science is mostly mute about that, literature isn't, art isn't, philosophy isn't. Our culture would be infinitely more boring and more shallow without them.
OK, What is the meaning of the universe, what is the meaning of reality?

If philosophy can answer these questions then where are the answers?

Equating philosophy with art and literature really doesn't help the argument that philosophy can actually answer questions.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:29 AM   #474
llwyd
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,133
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
OK, What is the meaning of the universe, what is the meaning of reality?
42.

Well, I don't think philosophy can establish facts (apart from showing logical fallacies) - how many facts did mad Friedrich establish, and he really is a hugely meaningful philosopher, God bless his bonkers soul. I actually come from the esthetic side of things: for me literature is the most meaningful human pursuit, especially poetry, and I'm not really hugely taken with complicated metaphysical systems, but at its best philosophy can rival art. And the analytical approaches are very good for clear thinking and can open quite surprising vistas into our various activities.
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:08 AM   #475
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Philosophy=opinions dressed up as facts.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:20 AM   #476
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by llwyd View Post
Well, why should significance to reality be the criteria?
It isn't particularly unless it is being claimed. If someone wants to categorise philosophy as an enjoyable distraction with not significance to reality then I don't really have any objection to that

Quote:
Anyway, surely natural science has no significance to reality either - reality would be still there, I suppose, even if no-one would study it. Natural science establish facts but it can't really establish meanings. What is the meaning of the universe, what is the meaning of reality?
See, this is the infuriating jump. Science can't X therefore we need philosophy. But philosophy can't X either!!

Quote:
Should we make any further conclusions on the strange findings of modern physics? Sometimes the haters of literature and philosophy seem so incurious, so matter of fact about our experience of being in the world that they make everything sound very self-evident, very mundane, flat... But if you look around, our brief lifes are anything but flat, anything but mundane - we are, we live, we love, we die, bright flames in the huge darkness. Natural science is mostly mute about that, literature isn't, art isn't, philosophy isn't. Our culture would be infinitely more boring and more shallow without them.
Science isn't mute about any of that either. It just seeks to ground it in reality and what actually is. If your objection is that science doesn't make you feel as much of a special little snowflake as philosophy then go for whatever floats your boat. That doesn't make it meaningful or important though, nor does it mean its got a better hold on reality than anything else.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:21 AM   #477
Jorghnassen
Illuminator
 
Jorghnassen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
I don't see how any of the questions you gave as examples are 'philosophical' but perhaps I'm just lacking the context. I find the idea that maths and stats are really philosophy a stretch too far in the context of what I was commenting about which were the 'unanswerable questions' which were being proposed as being outwith the purvey of science.
I am not saying mathematics and statistics are philosophy, I am saying they share the "asking deep questions with possibly no definitive answer" traits, amongst other things. Both philosophy and math program will offer logic courses, though the content will emphasize different aspect of the subject.

With regards to the particular question mentioned: suppose you want to model the time between events that occur repeatedly over time, and to take into account a possible causal link from one event to the next. Biology, physics, medicine cannot answer that question, you have to go into the abstract world of mathematics to work on it. No matter what model you come up with, provided you find one that "works", the idea of "best fit" can be defined in many ways depending on context and criteria, and it's really more of an art then a science. What you decide to include or exclude from the data is another difficult question to answer. You can throw out stuff to make the math simpler, but you risk biasing your result (with respect to a theoretical construct). And how reliable the methods are is also based on abstract, essentially philosophical constructions (the wonderful world of asymptotic properties of estimators; it's all about sample sizes going to infinity, but in real life, sample sizes are always finite).

Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Why are they inherently philosophical? This is an assertion made several times in this thread and the riposte that they are investigated, analysed and progressed by scientists and mathematicians is continually ignored. The claim that everything is philosophical has no more validity than the claim 'god is love'.
I am not saying "everything is philosophical", I'm saying "dealing with deep questions about abstract concepts" is inherently philosophical, and that is what math is all about. And, provided with assumptions, math can answer some of these questions. But it must rely on unprovable/unknowable or external assumptions at some point. And it must ask those questions to decide where to draw the line in the sand with respect to the assumptions.

Quote:
As for advising scientists on statistical procedures, it depends on what procedures and what else they are doing. Particle physicists for instance will learn the mathematics required for their own purposes.

Biologists and chemists will advise medics on clinical trial protocols, neither claims that medicine is purely biology or chemistry, so why do philosophers need to keep making the claim that everything is theirs?
Again, that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that the "utilitarian" (well, isn't that a philosophy?) view of philosophy, in the sense that it doesn't provide anything useful (it does), is misguided. Asking those deep questions, raising those concerns, is vital to the pursuit of knowledge (all of it). I'm not saying philosophers ask only relevant questions (they don't) or provide meaningful answers or analyses (again, the mileage varies a lot). But you can't poopoo the whole field because Nietzsche, Hegel or your last philosophy professor was a dick or a lunatic or rambled on about meaningless things.

Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Those questions look like they should be answered on the basis of the method used and the results desired rather than philosophy.
The existing methods don't work for the given problem (though you have to know the theory behind to understand why), and the "results desired" are obvious, but the tricky part is coming up with an appropriate method that does provide some answer to the original question. Newton had to come up with differential and integral calculus to come up with the laws of motion. His fluxion approach is downright weird. Archimedes almost came up with calculus during antiquity but he didn't quite believe in the infinitesimals required to make things work... Again, once you delve into abstract constructs, you dabble at least a little into "deep questions with no answers without assumptions".

Quote:
ETA: if the scientists are as clueless as you portray them how do they keep their positions? Would they agree with you about this?
Because scientists are not the idealized truth finders you think them to be. The particular doctor I'm working with had this piece of wisdom (paraphrased): "if you need to ask a single statistician, it's an easy problem; if you need two, it's worth a publication; if you need three and they still can't answer your question, then you have a really interesting, important problem to work on". The scientific question in this case, is really simple. Solving the problem is a whole other matter. Just like the statement of Fermat's Last Theorem is at most high school math. The proof requires really advanced number theory.
And "keeping one's position" in academia is unfortunately all about publication output. Number of papers, regardless whether it's scientific garbage or not. See the link in my previous post.
__________________
"Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert
"My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast
Jorghnassen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:32 AM   #478
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Philosophy=opinions dressed up as facts.
For someone who gets upset when others point out that his opinions are ignorant, you seem to have no problem wearing said ignorance on your sleeve.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:45 AM   #479
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
OK, What is the meaning of the universe, what is the meaning of reality?

If philosophy can answer these questions then where are the answers?

Equating philosophy with art and literature really doesn't help the argument that philosophy can actually answer questions.

I’m curious tsig…do you have the slightest interest in ever learning anything?

Philosophy doesn’t answer the questions…you answer the questions. When you understand that, you will understand philosophy. Continually expecting the answers to be ‘out there’ is precisely why you don’t know how to answer the questions.

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
It isn't particularly unless it is being claimed. If someone wants to categorise philosophy as an enjoyable distraction with not significance to reality then I don't really have any objection to that

See, this is the infuriating jump. Science can't X therefore we need philosophy. But philosophy can't X either!!

Science isn't mute about any of that either. It just seeks to ground it in reality and what actually is. If your objection is that science doesn't make you feel as much of a special little snowflake as philosophy then go for whatever floats your boat. That doesn't make it meaningful or important though, nor does it mean its got a better hold on reality than anything else.

Science is not about what actually is. Science creates models of approximations of what is. You’re all completely overlooking the most critical component of science….THE SCIENTIST! The scientist operates in a world of meaning. The relationships between varieties of meaning is what philosophy is all about. Science is not reality. Science is models of reality. The models are a function of our ability to create, manipulate, and understand them. That, in its entirety, is the realm of philosophy. When science achieves an explicit algebra representing human meaning…then that process will become a scientific one. That achievement is not likely to occur…maybe ever.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:53 AM   #480
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
For someone who gets upset when others point out that his opinions are ignorant, you seem to have no problem wearing said ignorance on your sleeve.
Also, in spite of his boasting of having read a shelf full of philosophy texts, he is demonstrably incapable of distinguishing actual philosophy from satire. I say that pretty much disqualifies him from any further criticism of the field until he actually understands some of what he's read.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.