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 3rd December 2012, 12:16 PM   #481
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
Philosophy doesn’t answer the questions…you answer the questions.
When the questions are answered it's called science.
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, 12:18 PM   #482
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
I must say that I find the condescension,insulting attitude and arrogance of some of the philosophy fans here quite breathtaking.
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, 12:36 PM   #483
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I must say that I find the condescension,insulting attitude and arrogance of some of the philosophy fans here quite breathtaking.
You mistake frustration with you demonstrated lack of interest in learning the basics of philosphy with condescension. You seem content to snipe at your straw man of philosophy rather than try to communicate with people who are trying discuss philosophy with you.
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, 12:36 PM   #484
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
You admit 'philosophy won't provide answers' so it's failing the test already. The questions are faulty.
Then teach us, oh great master!

Instead of asking "how should we treat each other?", what question should we ask?

Instead of asking "how do we want the world to be in the future?", what question should we ask?

By what criteria are your questions better? (Ooh, that's a tricky one, it's almost like in order to answer it you have to do philosophy...)

Quote:
'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.
How do you test against reality a claim like "raping people is bad"? Or "natural ecosystems should not be destroyed for short-term profit"?

Teach me, oh great master. I just can't see how you do it without some prior, philosophical value judgment.

Quote:
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.
Ah, but who said that you could "sit in a darkened room and reason your way to 'how should we live?'"? Philosophers would call that a straw man argument. What is actually the case is that you can't get to "how we should live" without doing philosophy, not that you can do it solely with philosophy.

Philosophers would call this the distinction between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition, and interestingly enough it's this kind of subtle reasoning about causation that non-philosophers tend to bollocks up.
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, 12:42 PM   #485
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
non-philosophers tend to bollocks up.
Is that phrase from the Essex school of philosophy?
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, 12:42 PM   #486
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
When the questions are answered it's called science.
Now that is condescension.

You do understand that that questions of what £cience is and how science works are not answerable from within science, right?
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, 01:16 PM   #487
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Now that is condescension.

You do understand that that questions of what £cience is and how science works are not answerable from within science, right?
Why ask those questions? Science obviously works.
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, 01:25 PM   #488
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I must say that I find the condescension,insulting attitude and arrogance of some of the philosophy fans here quite breathtaking.
I suppose you would prefer not to be disagreed with, dafydd, but that's not how this works. You advance a clearly flawed proposition and people point out your Emperor's quite visible butt crack. I'm certain that it's embarrassing to see your ideas treated thus, especially in light of the fact that you thought you were showing Philosophy's nakedness.

It seems that your greatest complaint about philosophy is that you don't understand it. I don't understand Chinese, but I'm not so arrogant as to assume those who speak it are simply making random and unintelligible noises. Philosophy is often difficult to understand, but so are higher math, physics, biology, chemistry, and a whole host of other human endeavors. I have hated them all because they require study, but I didn't dismiss them as nonsense, I made an effort to learn something about them and I was rewarded for having done so.

Make no mistake, I still have questions about philosophy's usefulness. I've seen interesting arguments on this thread from other posters, but all I see from you is arrogant, insulting, condescending, and ultimately uninformed dismissals of the entire field. If you think I or anyone else is being condescending, then try advancing an argument that you can actually defend.
__________________
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 3rd December 2012, 01:27 PM   #489
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Why ask those questions? Science obviously works.
Naïveté is not a substitute for description.

Last edited by mijopaalmc; 3rd December 2012 at 01:39 PM.
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, 01:32 PM   #490
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
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.




.
So philosophy's' answer to the Great Questions is "look within"?

I've heard that before from the last guru i met.

Last edited by tsig; 3rd December 2012 at 01:35 PM.
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, 01:34 PM   #491
TeapotCavalry
Master Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Why ask those questions? Science obviously works.
This made me lol. Thanks.
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
TeapotCavalry 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, 01:35 PM   #492
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tsig View Post

FYI I answered those questions for myself and needed no philosophy to do it.
Ditto, but the philosophy fans can't imagine doing that without philosophy. Now we wait for them to tell me again just how obtuse I am.
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, 01:36 PM   #493
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
This made me lol. Thanks.
Just returning the favour. I'm getting a lot of innocent amusement from the vague ''answers'' from the philophiles.

Last edited by dafydd; 3rd December 2012 at 01:38 PM.
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, 01:38 PM   #494
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
This made me lol. Thanks.
Science doesn't work?
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, 01:38 PM   #495
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Why ask those questions? Science obviously works.
So far, it seems to. Will it hit a limit? Should we just worry about it if and when we get there?

Quote:
"it seems nevertheless natural that we should hesitate to erect a building with the cognitions we possess, without knowing whence they come, and on the strength of principles, the origin of which is undiscovered. Instead of thus trying to build without a foundation, it is rather to be expected that we should long ago have put the question, how the understanding can arrive at these a priori cognitions, and what is the extent, validity, and worth which they may possess?"
__________________
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 3rd December 2012, 01:44 PM   #496
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Science doesn't work?
We've been asking what conclusions philosophy has arrived at after a mere two thousand years of cogitation but so far the answer seems to be that you and I are too stupid to breathe the rarefied air of philosophy.

Last edited by dafydd; 3rd December 2012 at 01:45 PM.
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, 01:44 PM   #497
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Ditto, but the philosophy fans can't imagine doing that without philosophy. Now we wait for them to tell me again just how obtuse I am.
Wondering what answers you and tsig arrived at, and how. I notice that tsig has edited his post to back away from the claim. Why would that be?
__________________
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 3rd December 2012, 01:45 PM   #498
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Ditto, but the philosophy fans can't imagine doing that without philosophy. Now we wait for them to tell me again just how obtuse I am.
I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks, name calling and scorn being thrown around could it be the this really is philosophy?
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, 01:46 PM   #499
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks, name calling and scorn being thrown around could it be the this really is philosophy?
It will have to do in lieu of real answers.
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, 01:49 PM   #500
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Wondering what answers you and tsig arrived at, and how. I notice that tsig has edited his post to back away from the claim. Why would that be?
I edited it to correct a typo but somehow when I saved it the comment was gone and since the thread has moved on I haven't gone back to it.
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, 01:50 PM   #501
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Science doesn't work?
I'm guessing it was the "Why ask questions?" part, which is profoundly idiotic for someone who exalts and exults science to say.
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, 01:53 PM   #502
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Science doesn't work?
Do you know why it works? Or better still, would you be able to tell if it didn't, and to what degree that it didn't?

Be careful not to use any logic in your answer, and be certain that you make no epistemological claims either. That would be basing your argument on pseudoscientific "philosophy".
__________________
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 3rd December 2012, 01:56 PM   #503
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks, name calling and scorn being thrown around could it be the this really is philosophy?
Some name calling, personal attacks? Where is this happening? Scorn? Yes, unsupported arguments generally elicit that sort of response.
__________________
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 3rd December 2012, 02:06 PM   #504
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
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.
I'm sure you know exactly what I meant, but here goes:

Musing (which is what philosophy is) doesn't really give us any information about objective reality. It's better than superstition or fantasy, but it's far from the better alternative. It's a fun thing to do, but it's ultimately useless.

Quote:
Natural science establish facts but it can't really establish meanings.
Who cares about establishing meanings since those are subjective ?

Quote:
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...
That's your problem. If you need something fantastical to make things interesting, so be it. Me, I find reality infinitely fascinating, even sometimes its most mundane aspects.

Quote:
Natural science is mostly mute about that
No it isn't. It actually explains that.
__________________
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, 02:09 PM   #505
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
So far, it seems to. Will it hit a limit? Should we just worry about it if and when we get there?
If it reaches a limit, it will be a limit that philosophy can appear to break, but in reality doesn't.
__________________
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, 02:09 PM   #506
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Some name calling, personal attacks? Where is this happening? Scorn? Yes, unsupported arguments generally elicit that sort of response.
Take a leaf out of our book then, we are reasonably polite about the philosophy fans unsupported arguments.
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, 02:11 PM   #507
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Take a leaf out of our book then, we are reasonably polite about the philosophy fans unsupported arguments.
You may wish to check your posting history there. You've got scorn to spare.
__________________
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 3rd December 2012, 02:28 PM   #508
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Take a leaf out of our book then, we are reasonably polite about the philosophy fans unsupported arguments.
No, you haven't been "reasonably polite". You started by dismissing philosophy as meaningless and went from there. Your ignorant disregard for the topic of conversation exemplifies your utter lack of manners.
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, 02:29 PM   #509
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Do you know why it works? Or better still, would you be able to tell if it didn't, and to what degree that it didn't?

Be careful not to use any logic in your answer, and be certain that you make no epistemological claims either. That would be basing your argument on pseudoscientific "philosophy".
So no matter what I say you're going to call it philosophy? IOW anyone who argues with you must lose because they have to use philosophy to argue.

Seems a mite self serving.
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, 02:34 PM   #510
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
You may wish to check your posting history there. You've got scorn to spare.
I must say I'm getting a real education in philosophical arguments. Scorn is OK as long as you think you're smarter than the other poster.

What happened to reason?
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, 02:34 PM   #511
Democracy Simulator
Muse
 
Democracy Simulator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 628
P1. The questions that human beings generally find most important are moral questions, (i.e. questions that concern themselves with 'right and wrong' and values) and questions of deeper meaning, (e.g. Is my life purposeful?, How do I lead a good life). Moral questions and questions of deeper meaning are often interlinked.

P2. Moral questions and questions of deeper meaning have no scientific meaning.

Therefore science cannot frame or answer the questions that people generally find most important.

The flip side to this is that we instead say that science is correct and moral questions and questions of deeper meaning are meaningless. In which case we are left with Logical Positivism or something similar, which is essentially self-refuting; a philosophy that asserts that there is no synthetic a-priori knowledge, which is in itself a synthetic a priori statement.

So science can answer questions, just not the ones that are really important for many people. Philosophy provides answers to some of those important questions, but these are not scientific answers. Science is very worthwhile, but I'm not sure why anyone would consider it worthwhile unless they already had answers to some of those important questions that they were happy with, even if the answer was Logical Postivism, which is inescapably, philosophy.
__________________
"Every line of serious work I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." George Orwell, 'Why I Write'
Democracy Simulator 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, 03:02 PM   #512
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So no matter what I say you're going to call it philosophy? IOW anyone who argues with you must lose because they have to use philosophy to argue.

Seems a mite self serving.
You should probably go back and read the thread again. It was pretty early on when the anti-philosophy camp made the claim that all the useful (to science) aspects of philosophy, like formal logic or math, are not really the domain of philosophy but are science and math.

Logic and epistemology are fields of philosophical study. You'd like to pretend that they're not, and therefore philosophy is useless. I'll have to call BS on that.
__________________
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 3rd December 2012, 03:11 PM   #513
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Suppose philosophy never gave a single answer to any question, would it still be a worthwhile pursuit?

Yes, and here are a few reasons why.

1) Exploring questions allows you to figure out which tools are useful and which not. So, for example, examining underlying suppositions on which an argument rests exposes the links between where you start and where you end up. Philosophy examines premises and connections.

2) Finding out that attractive notions, which may have seemed like answers are nothing of the sort eliminates a false sense of arriving at a firm conclusion. Philosophy introduces doubt.

3) We can expose some questions as having many more dimensions than we might have originally thought. Philosophy expands horizons.

4) We can accept some limitations because those types of answers, while not complete, work in practice (here is where the claims about science come in). Philosophy can describe limits.

5) We are not prohibited from exploring ideas without knowing where we will end up and having no clear objective in mind. Philosophy helps frame the discussion.

I should like to point out that science doesn't offer any more answers than philosophy does. Both provide partial answers restricted by context. So, for example, if I want to know the boiling point of some substance, I can claim I have "an" answer, but the real answer (if there is one) is hidden behind a veil of measurement problems and ultimately, uncertainty.

Philosophy does the same thing. It has a built in "plus or minus" made from natural language instead of numbers, and neither enterprise makes a claim of final truth.

Last edited by marplots; 3rd December 2012 at 03:53 PM.
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, 03:12 PM   #514
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator View Post
P1. The questions that human beings generally find most important are moral questions, (i.e. questions that concern themselves with 'right and wrong' and values) and questions of deeper meaning, (e.g. Is my life purposeful?, How do I lead a good life). Moral questions and questions of deeper meaning are often interlinked.

P2. Moral questions and questions of deeper meaning have no scientific meaning.

Therefore science cannot frame or answer the questions that people generally find most important.

The flip side to this is that we instead say that science is correct and moral questions and questions of deeper meaning are meaningless. In which case we are left with Logical Positivism or something similar, which is essentially self-refuting; a philosophy that asserts that there is no synthetic a-priori knowledge, which is in itself a synthetic a priori statement.

So science can answer questions, just not the ones that are really important for many people. Philosophy provides answers to some of those important questions, but these are not scientific answers. Science is very worthwhile, but I'm not sure why anyone would consider it worthwhile unless they already had answers to some of those important questions that they were happy with, even if the answer was Logical Postivism, which is inescapably, philosophy.
Most people I have met are concerned with where will the food come from, where will i live and how can I make a living.

What are those answers that philosophy provides, the last time I asked I was told that the answers had to come from within and that I was ignorant for asking the questions but posters here are constantly telling me that philosophy answers the Great Questions then get mad when I ask what the answers are.
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, 03:15 PM   #515
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Most people I have met are concerned with where will the food come from, where will i live and how can I make a living.

What are those answers that philosophy provides, the last time I asked I was told that the answers had to come from within and that I was ignorant for asking the questions but posters here are constantly telling me that philosophy answers the Great Questions then get mad when I ask what the answers are.
With any luck we'll get one answer before the thread ends.
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, 03:21 PM   #516
TeapotCavalry
Master Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So no matter what I say you're going to call it philosophy? IOW anyone who argues with you must lose because they have to use philosophy to argue.
That's right. If you want to use logical inference or a rational way of thinking in general, say deduction, you're using the tools of philosophy. It doesn't matter the slightest that you personally protest that this isn't philosophy. What philosophy means, is conventional, just like any name given to any field of study - we all agree on what it means so that we can meaningfully use it in communication. The conventional definition, scope and description of philosophy has been given here more times than I care to count. You have been given links to articles, wiki entries, dictionary definitions, personal testimonies and takes on what philosophy means, quoted professional opinions and a lot of people have been unbelievable resilient (Kevin_Lowe, marplots, etc) in answering questions that I personally have deemed unworthy of any attention because of their apparent intentional emotion-provoking content and delivery (there's a specific name for that, innit) and complete disregard for intellectual integrity and contextual history of the argument.

So you're going nowhere arguing philosophy is useless that way (what other way could you argue? beats me, but try to surprise us). It's like trying to say "language conveys no meaning" by using language to convey that meaning. Also, I find your complaint of "losing the argument" quite telling. You're in it for the win? Figures. I was here merely to explain the worth of knowledge from my perspective.
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
TeapotCavalry 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, 03:43 PM   #517
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Most people I have met are concerned with where will the food come from, where will i live and how can I make a living.

What are those answers that philosophy provides, the last time I asked I was told that the answers had to come from within and that I was ignorant for asking the questions but posters here are constantly telling me that philosophy answers the Great Questions then get mad when I ask what the answers are.
That's because (and this is really going to annoy you) there is no way of telling what the answers are. That is, there are many ways of answering the same question, and, most often, it is difficult to come up with a means of ranking the answers such that here is only one that is the best.

Now, that may be ultimately unsatisfying to you, but you display the greatest arrogance when you insist that you lack of satisfaction with the answers implies either that there are no answers or that searching for answers is a waste of time.

If you want to learn how some of the "Great Questions" have been answered, you would be better served to--oh, I don't know--google philosophy and read some secondary or tertiary sources and then, if you're still intersted, continue on to the primary source. Your're currently asking to be spoon-fed an education in philosophy when you have been offered some resources already.
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, 03:52 PM   #518
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
That's right. If you want to use logical inference or a rational way of thinking in general, say deduction, you're using the tools of philosophy. It doesn't matter the slightest that you personally protest that this isn't philosophy. What philosophy means, is conventional, just like any name given to any field of study - we all agree on what it means so that we can meaningfully use it in communication. The conventional definition, scope and description of philosophy has been given here more times than I care to count. You have been given links to articles, wiki entries, dictionary definitions, personal testimonies and takes on what philosophy means, quoted professional opinions and a lot of people have been unbelievable resilient (Kevin_Lowe, marplots, etc) in answering questions that I personally have deemed unworthy of any attention because of their apparent intentional emotion-provoking content and delivery (there's a specific name for that, innit) and complete disregard for intellectual integrity and contextual history of the argument.

So you're going nowhere arguing philosophy is useless that way (what other way could you argue? beats me, but try to surprise us). It's like trying to say "language conveys no meaning" by using language to convey that meaning. Also, I find your complaint of "losing the argument" quite telling. You're in it for the win? Figures. I was here merely to explain the worth of knowledge from my perspective.
So your answer to the question "what's philosophy worth?' is that everything is philosophy so you can't even ask the question without using philosophy.

Yet still I see no answers to the Great Questions which I've been assured that philosophy has.

Congratulations on your pure desire to teach us. It's nice when someone points out that they are taking the high road.
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, 04:18 PM   #519
TeapotCavalry
Master Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So your answer to the question "what's philosophy worth?' is that everything is philosophy so you can't even ask the question without using philosophy.
No. Let me quote myself from the post I just made, since obviously it was very confusing statement and semantic wordplay lost in wall of text impossible to decipher and lost in obscurity:

Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry
If you want to use logical inference or a rational way of thinking in general, say deduction, you're using the tools of philosophy.
Now is there anything particular you wish me to clarify regarding that sentence? Which part gave you the impression that philosophy is everything? I would be truly curious, if I thought this was an honest mistake and genuine interest.

Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Yet still I see no answers to the Great Questions which I've been assured that philosophy has.

Congratulations on your pure desire to teach us. It's nice when someone points out that they are taking the high road.
And why would I even engage in a sincere discussion with someone who just spews that kind of bitterness for no rational reason? It's not every day you see every sentence of a post be a separate straw man. Well done.
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
TeapotCavalry 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, 04:20 PM   #520
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by Jorghnassen View Post
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.
I've snipped quite a lot of your post...but I really don't see where the philosophy is coming in. I don't think maths and stats ask deep questions with no answers to be honest. They are just tools to help us model the world. But again maybe I'm missing your meaning.

Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
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.
You don't generally learn anything new about the world by asking yourself questions you don't know the answer to, particularly if you then take what you come up with as some great revelation.


Quote:
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.
Yes science creates models of what is. Models that work and help us understand what is. Models that lead us to the car, the computer, the telephone, etc etc etc. The least critical part of science is the scientist because it doesn't matter who is doing it...it works regardless. If Newton hadn't discovered the laws of motion someone else would have eventually and they'd be the same. Because reality exists and behaves independent of whatever meaning an individual wishes to bestow upon it.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Then teach us, oh great master!

Instead of asking "how should we treat each other?", what question should we ask?

Instead of asking "how do we want the world to be in the future?", what question should we ask?

By what criteria are your questions better? (Ooh, that's a tricky one, it's almost like in order to answer it you have to do philosophy...)

How do you test against reality a claim like "raping people is bad"? Or "natural ecosystems should not be destroyed for short-term profit"?

Teach me, oh great master. I just can't see how you do it without some prior, philosophical value judgment.
How to do what exactly? Formulate questions that neither science nor philosophy can provide answers to?

But hell if you want a better question than 'How should we live?' try 'How can I help stop children in Africa dying of malaria?' or 'How can we ensure the world has enough drinking water to sustain the population in the future?'.

Useful practical questions which may have answers that might actually benefit real people with real problems.

Quote:
Ah, but who said that you could "sit in a darkened room and reason your way to 'how should we live?'"? Philosophers would call that a straw man argument. What is actually the case is that you can't get to "how we should live" without doing philosophy, not that you can do it solely with philosophy.
And, as you admitted, you can't get to it with philosophy either. Sounds like a bit of a stalemate to be honest.



Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Suppose philosophy never gave a single answer to any question, would it still be a worthwhile pursuit?
Interesting maybe, but not particularly worthwhile.

Testing things against reality would probably help you figure out most of the example you give just as well. We're alsogetting into the kind of territory here where 'thinking something through' is 'doing philosophy' and I'm not buying that

Quote:
I should like to point out that science doesn't offer any more answers than philosophy does. Both provide partial answers restricted by context. So, for example, if I want to know the boiling point of some substance, I can claim I have "an" answer, but the real answer (if there is one) is hidden behind a veil of measurement problems and ultimately, uncertainty.
For all practical purposes this is bollocks. There's no uncertainty about boiling the kettle to make a cup of tea. Science provides the answer. Philosophers try to invent spurious reasons why they don't, while still enjoying the cup of tea science provided for them.

Quote:
Philosophy does the same thing. It has a built in "plus or minus" made from natural language instead of numbers, and neither enterprise makes a claim of final truth.
If we're talking about the kind of 'how should we live questions' then the 'plus or minus' comes from not really having the first grasp of what the hell we are talking about, what the question actually means, what an answer would look like and how to determine one. That's not 'the same thing' at all. That's a whole new world of 'not the same thing'. Trying to draw a parallel between the two would be to say that neither I nor Usain Bolt can lay claim to being the fastest man who will ever live and so we're both the same when it comes to running.
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
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 12:58 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.