|
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. |
28th November 2012, 12:10 PM | #241 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Well, to pick one out that's easy to talk about, Marx's idea that human nature was driven entirely by social context has been abandoned (refuted in detail by Norman Geras) so that philosophers accept that human nature is a combination of innate and social. This resolved the nature vs. nurture argument.
It is however, still an ongoing shaping of the theory to describe just which parts of human behavior are hardwired and which shaped or created by context. For example, how much of moral judgement is bound up in the genome? This highlights one clear advantage philosophers have. They are not restricted in this question to what is produced by some sub-specialty. They often blend results from biology, psychology, neurology and others to make their arguments. |
28th November 2012, 12:23 PM | #242 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Here's a physics PhD of some note doing philosophy:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm Perhaps the problem is with the box we are trying to jam philosophy into. It's really nothing more than systematic thinking about the world. It uses the facts and discoveries of science, it uses the logics of mathematics, it uses appeals to emotion and commonsense -- in short, all the cognitive tools available. It's not something to be feared or poo-pooed, it's really just disciplined thinking. It's also not the cartoon version of sonorous and impenetrable obtuseness. Clarity really is the objective, but without eschewing the complex when warranted. |
28th November 2012, 01:41 PM | #243 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
28th November 2012, 01:41 PM | #244 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
Let's try another example to see if people will get it when approached from a different angle. What failures in rationality does the following passage display?
"Music is completely stupid and a waste of time. I know all about music. For instance many years ago I listened to a 'popular' song called Achy Breaky Heart, and it was awful. Recently someone called Rebecca Black sang a song and it was ghastly - look, if I have to I'll give you a link so that nobody can say my argument isn't thoroughly referenced. That's not all though. I also listened to this 'famous' piece called Beethoven's something, and it was total wank. It went on forever and used sixty instruments to play a tune that you could play on a simple piano. Plus I listened to this Renaissance piece once and it was really boring. To top it off, one time this insufferable git brought a guitar to a party and played it, and he couldn't sing, and he couldn't play, and his taste in music was terrible, and he ruined the party with his attention-seeking. I don't understand why musicians keep claiming music powers the Space Shuttle. I'm sure they claim this all the time, even though I can't find a citation and nobody will argue against me. But if it doesn't power the Space Shuttle it clearly has no use whatsoever. Plus this one musician was religious. I mean, case closed! Woo woo city! Lastly people keep saying I don't know anything about music, have no real knowledge about or understanding of music, and that I am painting with a ridiculously broad brush out of utter ignorance. Well, I'll show them all! Here's a definition of music I cut and pasted from the Free Dictionary. Bam! mu·sic (myzk) n. 1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre. 2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm. 3. a. A musical composition. b. The written or printed score for such a composition. c. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano. 4. A musical accompaniment. 5. A particular category or kind of music. 6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines. Anyone who disagrees with me after that is a big silly woo-woo ". |
28th November 2012, 02:02 PM | #245 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
It's completely dishonest argumentative tactics to accuse me of "withdrawing" from an argument that was your straw man in the first place. It would be minimally polite of you to withdraw that accusation and own your straw man.
As has already been explained to you, a decent analogy is that studying philosophy is to doing science what studying grammar is to talking. You can do just fine without it, but if you've studied the underpinnings rigorously you've got a language with which to analyse why certain constructions work or do not work. As far as ethics goes, asking what philosophy has contributed to ethics is like asking what putting sounds in a pre-arranged order has contributed to music. If you're not adhering blindly to theistic dictums or social norms, if you're thinking logically about what you should and should not do, then you're by definition doing philosophy. If you want specific examples, how about Jeremy Bentham? The founder of utilitarian moral philosophy, he was a libertarian, feminist, abolitionist animal-rights supporter and he was born in 1748. Apart from being 250 years ahead of his time he was also a major influence on John Stuart Mill, who was a pretty cool guy even if he's been fetishised by the kind of USians who capitalise "founding father".
Quote:
|
28th November 2012, 02:24 PM | #246 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
28th November 2012, 03:26 PM | #247 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,165
|
(numbering mine)
Marplots provided a very good example of how philosophy and science intersect. And in fact further examples can be provided based on your objection.
1. In studuying quantum mechanics physicists use various interpretations of quantum mechanics. These interpretations differ in their ontology, epistemology, determinism, realism etc. which are philosophical concepts, and are of interest to both philosophers and physicists. 2. In reasoning and forming theories astrophysicists and cosmologists use anthropic principle, which is a "philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it." |
28th November 2012, 03:37 PM | #248 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
28th November 2012, 03:52 PM | #249 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
Philosophers Kick Ass, Man!
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Übermensch!
|
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
28th November 2012, 03:53 PM | #250 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,165
|
|
28th November 2012, 04:04 PM | #251 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,165
|
It's Kim Kierkegaardashian.
|
28th November 2012, 04:12 PM | #252 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
28th November 2012, 04:46 PM | #253 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
OK, you seem to be dissociating yourself from the claim that philosophy has anything to contribute to science. That better?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
28th November 2012, 04:53 PM | #254 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
28th November 2012, 04:54 PM | #255 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,741
|
I like philosophy and critical thinking.... but I know some majors in philosophy and they don't seem any better off then anyone else (or any better at critical thinking)... though I'm sure it still must help a bit...... Who is the 9/11 truther that teaches critical thinking again? That blows my mind.
|
28th November 2012, 05:02 PM | #256 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
Perhaps it was very good for you.
Quote:
Quote:
|
28th November 2012, 05:39 PM | #257 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
I see how the trick works. If a philosopher has anything useful to say about science, he's not acting as a philosopher when he says it, he's being scientific!
And when scientists delve into philosophy, why they are doing it the right way, and besides, they aren't philosophers anyhow. Now, if I could only come up with an empirical test for this, I'd be able to figure out the truth. |
28th November 2012, 05:41 PM | #258 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
|
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
28th November 2012, 05:50 PM | #261 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
28th November 2012, 06:07 PM | #262 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
28th November 2012, 06:12 PM | #263 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
|
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
28th November 2012, 06:41 PM | #264 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
28th November 2012, 07:45 PM | #266 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
Kind of. You're still stuck on the false dichotomy that philosophy must be everything to science or it's nothing, which is like saying that grammar must be everything to writing a good book or it's nothing.
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe if you want to take this further you should explain what you think philosophy and philosophers need to do in that area to impress you. Otherwise I'm going to think that you're just locked yourself into pooh-poohing philosophy now and there's no point in discussing the matter with you.
Quote:
Lots of departments use English to convey ideas and do so perfectly well, but they aren't the English department, and English as such is not their area of study. Lots of departments use logic and critical thinking and do so perfectly well, but they aren't the Philosophy department and logic and critical thinking as such are not their area of study. (Apart from discrete mathematics which overlaps formal logic). In exactly the same way some scientists/engineers design and build instruments and others use those instruments in research. In each case if you have a tricky question about how the instrument works, or what the correct grammar is, or whether a position is logical or not, you might be able to figure it out for yourself but there are people with specific expertise in that area who almost certainly know a lot more about the topic than you do and can solve the problem relatively effortlessly. The fundamental problem is that it's obvious to you (using the general "you" here) when someone else is poorer at rational thinking than you. You spot irrational idiots all the time and think "Heh, what an idiot". However it's profoundly non-obvious when someone else is better at critical thinking than you are. Unless you're unusually rational to begin with, it just seems like the better thinker is an opinionated jerk who ignores the sweet, sweet reason of your impeccably logical arguments. Bad thinkers and good thinkers alike tend to think that they are on the highest plateau of reasoning ability. Fox News viewers think they are as smart as they need to be and just about as smart as people get. So too do JREF forum posters. Why is this a fundamental problem? Well, philosophers have chosen an area of study, rational thought, where if they perform badly everyone notices and if they excel at it most people still think they are performing badly. |
28th November 2012, 08:21 PM | #267 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,146
|
Originally Posted by dafydd
What's hilarious? That (according to Popper) it is the least likely theory that explains known facts (as opposed to the theory most likely to be true) as the one should rationally prefer? |
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski |
|
28th November 2012, 08:31 PM | #268 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,146
|
Originally Posted by Acleron
I don't see what your example has got to do with anything. Popper's contribution to the philosophy of science (ie falsifiability) was what was being discussed, not empirical science. |
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski |
|
28th November 2012, 11:09 PM | #270 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
|
I'll not be as nice as others: Folks who can find no value in philosophy are arrogant idiots. Really. This is a *********** skepticism board. The entire skeptical approach to life was pioneered by philosophers, and its biggest advocates in the scientific world (i.e., Sagan and Gould) certainly appreciated and even dabbled in philosophy themselves.
A few other things: 1. Stop saying scientists "deduce" from "facts." Science deals with observations, and so its conclusions are effectively always inductive. You would understand the difference-- and the significance!-- if you had bothered to take a couple philosophy courses in college. 2. The existence of god is an unknowable fact. Even with limited resources, there is no way to scientifically test its existence. You still hold a position, and it has been informed by philosophy. Most of you complaining about philosophy would probably absolutely love Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." 3. It was philosophy and skepticism that drove me to become a scientist. Everything I've accomplished since has been influenced by the understanding of knowledge and argument that I gained through philosophy. 4. To the poster who argued that philosophy is like the syntax of science: Wonderful analogy. Fantastic description. Thank you. I would have murdered myself out of exasperation had it not been for your glorious analogy. |
__________________
“Science is an integral part of culture. It's not this foreign thing, done by an arcane priesthood. It's one of the glories of the human intellectual tradition.” - Stephen Jay Gould |
|
28th November 2012, 11:15 PM | #271 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
"Most of the time, music is bad or of no value. Musicians themselves will tell you this, they just disagree on whose work is wrong and of no value."
"Most of the time, political beliefs are bad or of no value. Politicians themselves will tell you this, they just disagree on whose platform is wrong and of no value." "Most of the time, art is bad or of no value. Artists themselves will tell you this, they just disagree on whose work is wrong and of no value." "Most of the time, books are bad or of no value. Authors themselves will tell you this, they just disagree on whose work is wrong and of no value." I could go on, but you get the point. Your argument does not establish what you need it to establish. It's simply not proof that an enormously broad area of human endeavour is worthless if people disagree about which bits of it are good. It might be, for example, that some philosophy is bad and some is good, and that there is something of benefit to be had in the good bits. It also might be, for example, that the mere existence of a contrary opinion does not invalidate a different, well-supported opinion. Or it might be that what you are taught in academic Philosophy is a set of broadly applicable skills more so than a body of knowledge, and that those skills have great value whether or not you happen to agree with any given set of philosophical assertions. |
28th November 2012, 11:52 PM | #272 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
It seems you're saying that people who disagree with the philosophers in this thread are ignorant of philosophy. Would all the other philosophers in this thread agree with your implication? If this is the case, then you all have arrived at a consensus regarding this issue and have philosophically proven it so it therefore must be true, right?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
29th November 2012, 12:20 AM | #273 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th November 2012, 03:33 AM | #274 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 04:27 AM | #275 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,165
|
That is not an argument, nor philosophy, that's simply sophistry. Marplots' example was very good for this discussion as it fulfilled the criteria of philosophy and science intersecting.
Goalposts. Stop running with them. It still is an example of philosophy and science intersecting. A philosophical concept. Brought to you by a scientist. Scientist practising philosophy. Impossibruuu! *head explodes* |
29th November 2012, 04:53 AM | #276 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,165
|
|
29th November 2012, 04:58 AM | #277 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,165
|
Don't be so hard - it's not their fault, it's just a postmodern thing. In a postmodern way it's possible to pretend that for example empirism or positivism or falsificationism are not philosophical consepts as long as you don't say 'empirism'/'positivism'/'falsificationism' but only talk about experiments, results and validation/invalidation.
It's not reasonable nor logical, but in layman's postmodernism all opinions become valid when they are expressed. And pretending to live in a vacuum, without recognizing the influence of the philosophies of the world outside, is part of that line of thinking. |
29th November 2012, 06:06 AM | #278 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
Jeremy Bentham
This is an example of philosophy contributing to ethics. Bentham was a child prodigy who claimed he became a reformer at the age of 11, a claim slightly disproven by his criticism of the American Declaration of Independence at the age of 28 and designing a prison when 38 as 'a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example'. Chilling words indeed. He wanted the contract for building the thing and to govern it. When this failed to occur he had a sense of injustice (well he would, he was a lawyer) and developed ideas of 'sinister interests'. Obviously a very bright man, he developed his ideas of reform and utilitarianism in a precise and logical manner. But nowhere can I see how philosophy points out that his ideas of reform are correct. I suppose you could say his training as a philosopher allowed him to approach his ideas logically, but that could also be from his formal training as a lawyer. There is no doubt he was years ahead of his time in many areas of social reform but it is harder to understand the thesis that philosophy points to a correct solution. |
29th November 2012, 06:24 AM | #280 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
|
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry
Maybe, just maybe, the questioners of philosophy should lay down certain goalposts in regards to what they expect philosophy to do in order for it to be a meaningful pursuit of knowledge.
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry
I think we have more basics problems to work out than the utility of philosophy. To your claim that chemists spoiled philosophers' study of matter by doing experiments or that physicists, mathematicians and astronomers spoiled the study of cosmos by making observations and falsifiable theories. This all seems groundless hyperbole to me, based simply on the ignorance (or strawman) of what philosophy is and does. What has PhD got to do with your initial claim? Could you elaborate? Guilt by association? |
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|