|
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. |
29th November 2012, 06:34 AM | #281 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,165
|
|
29th November 2012, 06:50 AM | #282 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 516
|
|
29th November 2012, 06:51 AM | #283 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
|
|
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens. |
|
29th November 2012, 07:04 AM | #284 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 516
|
Well, the true opposite of post-modernism ("everything goes") is a position which claims absolute knowledge. But since that position is easily debunked, we have to lower our bar a little and go with scientific theories that display predictive power + simplicity. I myself hold that position. Scientific truths are not ontological, but they are very reliable. As such, they are the opposite of a philosophy which claims that no piece of knowledge can be said to be more certain than any other.
This has NOTHING to do with the ahistorical mindset some people here seem to hold. This mindset exists mostly out of historical ignorance. Yes, you can be a scientist today, make important discoveries and claim you know nothing about philosophy. But that doesn't mean philosophy didn't have a historical role in shaping the methods you now use, nor that philosophy won't be important for further methodological developments. |
29th November 2012, 07:11 AM | #285 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
This right here is an excellent demonstration of why some people could benefit from studying philosophy. As responses go this is terrible - you've googled up a web page that has some personal criticisms of Bentham, and repeated them as if they were somehow pertinent, but they are utterly irrelevant to the actual question of whether he had contributed something useful to ethics, or whether he was substantially ahead of his time on ethical issues.
Odds are that web page you found, if you had dug around a bit, would have a theistic origin by the way. The kind of people who like to position theism as the sole source of ethical clarity don't like Bentham very much, so they have the odd screed attacking his character as a substitute for being able to attack his actual philosophy.
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th November 2012, 07:18 AM | #286 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 516
|
Also, you're missing the point with the images you posted. You are depicting someone having a disagreement about definitions - it has nothing to do with facts, only with categorization.
Quite frankly, I think it's stupid to redefine philosophy, which is a word used to describe a very eclectic social phenomenon, just so you can get rid of the good parts and call the whole thing useless. But this doesn't have anything to do with denying there is such a thing as knowledge, nor with claiming that knowledge is just "opinions". Post-modernism really doesn't figure in this discussion. |
29th November 2012, 08:00 AM | #288 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
How can philosophical thought alone determine what role genetics and brain chemistry etc. play in whatever innate human behaviour you call "human nature"? How did philosophers find out in the first place that genes and brain chemistry even existed? Which philosophers discovered that? |
29th November 2012, 08:14 AM | #289 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
|
Since all the sciences developed out of natural philosophy, why on Earth would you want to stop doing philosophy now? Who knows what future branch of science will develop from philosophy?
|
29th November 2012, 08:27 AM | #290 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 08:28 AM | #291 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 08:32 AM | #292 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th November 2012, 08:48 AM | #293 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 08:55 AM | #294 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
|
|
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens. |
|
29th November 2012, 09:21 AM | #295 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 09:54 AM | #296 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
29th November 2012, 10:08 AM | #297 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 10:12 AM | #298 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
And here we have the basis for a fundamental mischaracterization of philosophy. The implication is that philosophy consists only of introspection, argument and eclectic ruminations -- necessarily removed and ignoring input from the outside world. However, it's exactly this outside world that generates all the discussion.
There is no such thing as "philosophical thought alone." Furthermore, it seems odd to think that science somehow "owns" reality when it ignores so much of it in favor of that portion amenable to experimentation. I am curious to find out which area of scientific research will undertake to answer these questions in philosophy? What is my purpose and reason for being? How do I achieve my purpose? What is my obligation (if any) to my fellow men? What is true, moral, just, and beautiful? Do these apply to all rational persons? What about animals? Why is there something rather than nothing? How should I live? What life or ideal should I live or die for? What are the limits of human knowledge and understanding? On what can I base my answers to these questions? I have heard it said that a good question in science is one where there is a clear path to an answer. Philosophy doesn't have that limitation. |
29th November 2012, 10:27 AM | #299 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 648
|
Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. Any time spent wondering why that is is, you guessed it, engaging in philosophy as well. I'm amazed at how many people here feel compelled to do that which they despise.
|
29th November 2012, 10:55 AM | #300 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
The real point is that you have to be neither a philosopher or trained in philosophy to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in science.
If philosophers want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything. |
29th November 2012, 11:01 AM | #301 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th November 2012, 11:05 AM | #302 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Here's why that's wrong:
The real point is that you have to be neither a scientist or trained in science to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in psychic research. If scientists want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything. Some of the best criticisms come from outside perspectives using different tools. |
29th November 2012, 11:06 AM | #303 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 648
|
tsig, it would help a great deal towards understanding your position if you could indicate which of these statements you feel are false.
1. Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. 2. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. 3. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. |
29th November 2012, 11:13 AM | #304 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 8,066
|
I agree. Also we have those that reject philosophy by attempting to classify the parts of it they like as not being philosophy.
Time to trot out the concept of epistemological privilege of science. Simply put, the scientific method gets better results than reasoning without experimentation. This is a philosophical concept that today seems self evident and is being ignored by the anti-philosophy crowd here. Skepticism itself is a philosophical concept. Scientific research should, but does not have to be, guided by ethical guidelines. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. Critical thinking is a tool of philosophy that is used by science. But all of that stated, most of what comes out of philosophy these days is useless or worse. You do not need to be a "philosopher" to use anything I described above. But attempting to reject philosophy as a whole is rather pointless. There is no clear demarcation point between science and philosophy. They overlap a bit and a lot of the arguments here are misguided. |
__________________
45 es un titere |
|
29th November 2012, 11:30 AM | #305 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 11:32 AM | #306 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 11:34 AM | #307 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
29th November 2012, 11:45 AM | #308 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 11:47 AM | #309 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 648
|
|
29th November 2012, 12:00 PM | #310 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 12:31 PM | #311 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
29th November 2012, 12:36 PM | #312 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 12:51 PM | #313 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
|
|
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens. |
|
29th November 2012, 12:53 PM | #314 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 12:58 PM | #315 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
29th November 2012, 01:14 PM | #316 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
|
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
29th November 2012, 01:16 PM | #317 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 01:16 PM | #318 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
|
|
29th November 2012, 01:18 PM | #319 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
|
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
29th November 2012, 02:26 PM | #320 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
|
|
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|