I don't exist. According to some philosophers they don't exist and I don't exist... . - Page 10

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 03:21 AM

http://philosophy.eserver.org/anonymous.html

Twiler · 11th November 2012, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Philosophers have different opinions. Which philosopher, past or present, had the real knowledge?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that philosophy cannot be a field of knowledge because philosophers say different things and they can't all be correct?

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that philosophy cannot be a field of knowledge because philosophers say different things and they can't all be correct?

Yes. Philosophy is a speculative word game. Anyone with a good vocabulary can join in. My own view is that a priori aspects of epistemology are of themselves empirical and propaedeutic in nature and therefore absolutist and transcend consequentialism.

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 04:08 AM

If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist.

marplots · 11th November 2012, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist.

Why? Does thinking something mean you have to exist? If I think I'm Jesus, does that make Jesus appear?

Twiler · 11th November 2012, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Yes. Philosophy is a speculative word game. Anyone with a good vocabulary can join in. My own view is that a priori aspects of epistemology are of themselves empirical and propaedeutic in nature and therefore absolutist and transcend consequentialism.

Scientists have said different things throughout history, so why don't you denounce them?

I imagine that your answer is going to be 'because of the use of experimentation to confirm their results', but philosophers reach their results via logic, so what's the difference?

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Scientists have said different things throughout history, so why don't you denounce them?

I imagine that your answer is going to be 'because of the use of experimentation to confirm their results', but philosophers reach their results via logic, so what's the difference?

Experiments are real.

Twiler · 11th November 2012, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist.

You know, I think someone earlier in thread suggested that the actual position of these particular nihilists was that language implied they didn't exist. Does your memory go back that far?

Also, someone already tried this witty retort.

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Why? Does thinking something mean you have to exist? If I think I'm Jesus, does that make Jesus appear?

In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again.

Twiler · 11th November 2012, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Experiments are real.

And yet they rely on logic, which you don't seem to consider to be real.

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

You know, I think someone earlier in thread suggested that the actual position of these particular nihilists was that language implied they didn't exist. Does your memory go back that far?

Also, someone already tried this witty retort.

Not witty, but true. I find it odd that people who have to exist in order to use a language could consider that the language they use implies that they don't exist. Perhaps they should get out more.

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

And yet they rely on logic, which you don't seem to consider to be real.

It all depends on your definition of logic. A scientist carrying out an experiment is doing something practical, not cogitating on neo-Kantian metaphysics or Spinoza's ethics. Of course the scientist has to think logically about his work but I wouldn't consider that to be a branch of philosophy.

Twiler · 11th November 2012, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again.

That's paraphrasing Descartes. 'I think therefore I am.'

Twiler · 11th November 2012, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Not witty, but true. I find it odd that people who have to exist in order to use a language could consider that the language they use implies that they don't exist. Perhaps they should get out more.

Why?

Originally Posted by dafydd

Logic is real.

If that's your opinion, then why do you dismiss philosophy? Its results are based on logic, and logic is within its purview.

marplots · 11th November 2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again.

Didn't you just make your post exist by thinking about it?

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 04:46 AM

I give up, the word game has become very boring. I'm off to play non-logical fiddle at a local jam session, providing that I exist, of course. All the best, folks.

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Didn't you just make your post exist by thinking about it?

Yes, but it's not material. But you knew that, of course. Salut!

marplots · 11th November 2012, 04:54 AM

Philosophy has the power to make people feel uncomfortable. This is a good reason to keep it locked away.

"Excuse me sir, I believe you are asking too many pointed questions here with no foreseeable resolution in sight. Please produce your license to philosophize or I shall have to beat you about the buttocks with my truncheon."

"Kant. Emmanuel Kant, 007 -- licensed to query."

"Very good sir, but please be aware there are women and small children about."

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Philosophy has the power to make people feel uncomfortable. This is a good reason to keep it locked away.

It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, I find the word games amusing.

Quote:

"Excuse me sir, I believe you are asking too many pointed questions here with no foreseeable resolution in sight. Please produce your license to philosophize or I shall have to beat you about the buttocks with my truncheon."

"Kant. Emmanuel Kant, 007 -- licensed to query."

I'm shaken , but not stirred.

I have to get ready to appear before my public. You lot will have to find somebody else to toy with for the rest of the day. Cheers!

tsig · 12th November 2012, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Merton

What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.

You can't know what you don't know.

dafydd · 12th November 2012, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Merton

What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.

How many philosophical quandaries did Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain answer before they got to work and invented the transistor? My guess is none.

Twiler · 12th November 2012, 12:23 PM

Ah, you're both back.

Originally Posted by tsig

You can't know what you don't know.

(I'm reading this as 'What isn't known is unknowable')

Well, you don't know the colour of the carpet in my room, but you could know the colour of the carpet in my room.

You don't know that there isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room, but that's because you can't know that there is or isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room.

Originally Posted by dafydd

How many philosophical quandaries did Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain answer before they got to work and invented the transistor? My guess is none.

That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it.

In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it.

tsig · 12th November 2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Ah, you're both back.

(I'm reading this as 'What isn't known is unknowable')

Well, you don't know the colour of the carpet in my room, but you could know the colour of the carpet in my room.

You don't know that there isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room, but that's because you can't know that there is or isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room.

That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it.

In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it.

I see that once again you want to write my posts and answer them at the same time.

(Protip, using the phrase "I'm reading this as" makes the straw all that more visible.)

Twiler · 12th November 2012, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

I see that once again you want to write my posts and answer them at the same time.

(Protip, using the phrase "I'm reading this as" makes the straw all that more visible.)

Perhaps I should try the new and innovative approach of asking you clarifying questions about your position?

(Seriously, what do you want from me? You disapprove of me making assumptions, and you disapprove of me asking questions. In the circumstance when I don't know exactly what you mean, how can I continue the discussion without doing either one of those things?)

dafydd · 12th November 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it.

And you don't need to grapple with philosophical quandaries in order to employ it.

Quote:

In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it.

What kind of philosophical quandaries needed to be solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor? I can't think of any.

Twiler · 12th November 2012, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

And you don't need to grapple with philosophical quandaries in order to employ it.

Yes, that's what I meant. You don't need to understand philosophy to use science.

Originally Posted by dafydd

What kind of philosophical quandaries needed to be solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor? I can't think of any.

We got to this point in the discussion from Merton's post earlier:

Originally Posted by Merton

What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.

-which provides the quandaries relevant to this subject.

So, the discussion has gone:

Merton: Here are some quandaries that need answering before we can do science.

dafydd: The inventors of the transistor didn't consider those quandaries.

Twiler: They wouldn't need to solve them themselves.

dafydd: There aren't any quandaries that need answering to invent the transistor.

EDIT: Actually, I can see a problem with what I've said here; There needs to be a better distinction between a specific group of people using science, and humanity in general using science. Someone needs to think about these quandaries for science to exist in a useful form, but it doesn't have to be the specific people engaging in scientific activity. You need the philosophy of science to avoid cargo cult science, where a method is followed, but not a method which provides meaningful results.

dafydd · 12th November 2012, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

EDIT: Actually, I can see a problem with what I've said here; There needs to be a better distinction between a specific group of people using science, and humanity in general using science. Someone needs to think about these quandaries for science to exist in a useful form, but it doesn't have to be the specific people engaging in scientific activity. You need the philosophy of science to avoid cargo cult science, where a method is followed, but not a method which provides meaningful results.

Do you have any specific quandaries in mind? I strongly suspect that many of these quandaries will be moral problems and not philosophical in nature.

Twiler · 12th November 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Do you have any specific quandaries in mind? I strongly suspect that many of these quandaries will be moral problems and not philosophical in nature.

I meant the quandaries in Merton's post:

Quote:

What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.

dafydd · 12th November 2012, 05:06 PM

What quandaries? The definitions of the words evidence and knowledge are quite well known.

''Boys, we can't go ahead and invent the transistor, we haven't figured out yet exactly what it is that we cannot know''

Twiler · 12th November 2012, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

What quandaries? The definitions of the words evidence and knowledge are quite well known.

''Boys, we can't go ahead and invent the transistor, we haven't figured out yet exactly what it is that we cannot know''

They are now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them.

(Actually, can you tell me what definitions you're thinking of so I can make sure we're thinking along the same lines?)

dafydd · 12th November 2012, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

They are now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them.

(Actually, can you tell me what definitions you're thinking of so I can make sure we're thinking along the same lines?)

There are many dictionaries available. As for my thinking, I don't believe that the impenetrable word games of philosophy have anything to do with science and invention. Those that can, do. Those that kan't, philosophize.

Twiler · 13th November 2012, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

There are many dictionaries available.

Repeated with emphasis: They (the meanings of evidence and knowledge) are (widely known) now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them.

Originally Posted by dafydd

As for my thinking, I don't believe that the impenetrable word games of philosophy have anything to do with science and invention.

So, how do you think we got a scientific method that avoided the pitfall of cargo cult science?

Originally Posted by dafydd

Those that can, do. Those that kan't, philosophize.

Descartes was a soldier, a mathematician and a teacher as well as a philosopher. That's just one example that overturns that theory.

llwyd · 13th November 2012, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

It all depends on your definition of logic. A scientist carrying out an experiment is doing something practical, not cogitating on neo-Kantian metaphysics or Spinoza's ethics. Of course the scientist has to think logically about his work but I wouldn't consider that to be a branch of philosophy.

Well, I don't know about metaphysics, but I think ethics and morality are very important questions for us. The fact that philosophy is not a natural science doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Do you think that art and literature are meaningless too? Are only measurable, material things meaningful? And what exactly is their meaning?

Gazpacho · 13th November 2012, 01:32 AM

Sometimes I wonder if levi, with his repeated threads asking the same questions that he's received very direct answers to before, is some kind of self-justifying hoax by the the philosophy haters here.

dafydd · 13th November 2012, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

So, how do you think we got a scientific method that avoided the pitfall of cargo cult science?

Experiments.

dafydd · 13th November 2012, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by llwyd

Well, I don't know about metaphysics, but I think ethics and morality are very important questions for us. The fact that philosophy is not a natural science doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Do you think that art and literature are meaningless too? Are only measurable, material things meaningful? And what exactly is their meaning?

I think that the word philosophy is a vague term. Apparently just thinking about something is philosophizing. Which branch of philosophy do you consider to be the most meaningful?

dafydd · 13th November 2012, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Descartes was a soldier, a mathematician and a teacher as well as a philosopher. That's just one example that overturns that theory.

Was he philosophizing as he was fighting?

dafydd · 13th November 2012, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

Sometimes I wonder if levi, with his repeated threads asking the same questions that he's received very direct answers to before, is some kind of self-justifying hoax by the the philosophy haters here.

I don't hate philosophy. I notice that nobody has answered my question about which philosophical quandaries were solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor. I've been told that these quandaries exist but I have no inkling as to the nature of these quandaries, and I've only received vague answers, in the true spirit of philosophy.

llwyd · 13th November 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I think that the word philosophy is a vague term. Apparently just thinking about something is philosophizing. Which branch of philosophy do you consider to be the most meaningful?

If you'll answer me, I'll answer you! Deal?

marplots · 13th November 2012, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I don't hate philosophy. I notice that nobody has answered my question about which philosophical quandaries were solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor. I've been told that these quandaries exist but I have no inkling as to the nature of these quandaries, and I've only received vague answers, in the true spirit of philosophy.

I don't know enough about the invention of the transistor to have a good answer, but I want to guess anyhow.

Here's the quandary I have in mind: The meaning of i in the calculations. (Not the meaning of "I", although that would be cool, but the meaning of complex numbers in a real world application.)

11th November 2012, 03:21 AM	#361
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	http://philosophy.eserver.org/anonymous.html
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

11th November 2012, 03:26 AM	#362
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd Philosophers have different opinions. Which philosopher, past or present, had the real knowledge? I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that philosophy cannot be a field of knowledge because philosophers say different things and they can't all be correct?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

11th November 2012, 03:33 AM	#363
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that philosophy cannot be a field of knowledge because philosophers say different things and they can't all be correct? Yes. Philosophy is a speculative word game. Anyone with a good vocabulary can join in. My own view is that a priori aspects of epistemology are of themselves empirical and propaedeutic in nature and therefore absolutist and transcend consequentialism.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Last edited by dafydd; 11th November 2012 at 03:40 AM.

11th November 2012, 04:08 AM	#364
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

11th November 2012, 04:32 AM	#366
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd Yes. Philosophy is a speculative word game. Anyone with a good vocabulary can join in. My own view is that a priori aspects of epistemology are of themselves empirical and propaedeutic in nature and therefore absolutist and transcend consequentialism. Scientists have said different things throughout history, so why don't you denounce them? I imagine that your answer is going to be 'because of the use of experimentation to confirm their results', but philosophers reach their results via logic, so what's the difference?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

11th November 2012, 04:30 AM	#365
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by dafydd If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist. Why? Does thinking something mean you have to exist? If I think I'm Jesus, does that make Jesus appear?

11th November 2012, 04:33 AM	#367
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler Scientists have said different things throughout history, so why don't you denounce them? I imagine that your answer is going to be 'because of the use of experimentation to confirm their results', but philosophers reach their results via logic, so what's the difference? Experiments are real.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

11th November 2012, 04:34 AM	#368
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist. You know, I think someone earlier in thread suggested that the actual position of these particular nihilists was that language implied they didn't exist. Does your memory go back that far? Also, someone already tried this witty retort.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

11th November 2012, 04:35 AM	#369
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by marplots Why? Does thinking something mean you have to exist? If I think I'm Jesus, does that make Jesus appear? In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

11th November 2012, 04:36 AM	#370
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd Experiments are real. And yet they rely on logic, which you don't seem to consider to be real.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

11th November 2012, 04:37 AM	#371
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler You know, I think someone earlier in thread suggested that the actual position of these particular nihilists was that language implied they didn't exist. Does your memory go back that far? Also, someone already tried this witty retort. Not witty, but true. I find it odd that people who have to exist in order to use a language could consider that the language they use implies that they don't exist. Perhaps they should get out more.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

11th November 2012, 04:38 AM	#372
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler And yet they rely on logic, which you don't seem to consider to be real. It all depends on your definition of logic. A scientist carrying out an experiment is doing something practical, not cogitating on neo-Kantian metaphysics or Spinoza's ethics. Of course the scientist has to think logically about his work but I wouldn't consider that to be a branch of philosophy.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Last edited by dafydd; 11th November 2012 at 04:43 AM.

11th November 2012, 04:39 AM	#373
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again. That's paraphrasing Descartes. 'I think therefore I am.'
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

11th November 2012, 04:41 AM	#374
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd Not witty, but true. I find it odd that people who have to exist in order to use a language could consider that the language they use implies that they don't exist. Perhaps they should get out more. Why? Originally Posted by dafydd Logic is real. If that's your opinion, then why do you dismiss philosophy? Its results are based on logic, and logic is within its purview.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

11th November 2012, 04:42 AM	#375
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by dafydd In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again. Didn't you just make your post exist by thinking about it?

11th November 2012, 04:46 AM	#376
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	I give up, the word game has become very boring. I'm off to play non-logical fiddle at a local jam session, providing that I exist, of course. All the best, folks.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

11th November 2012, 04:50 AM	#377
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by marplots Didn't you just make your post exist by thinking about it? Yes, but it's not material. But you knew that, of course. Salut!
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

11th November 2012, 04:54 AM	#378
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Philosophy has the power to make people feel uncomfortable. This is a good reason to keep it locked away. "Excuse me sir, I believe you are asking too many pointed questions here with no foreseeable resolution in sight. Please produce your license to philosophize or I shall have to beat you about the buttocks with my truncheon." "Kant. Emmanuel Kant, 007 -- licensed to query." "Very good sir, but please be aware there are women and small children about."

11th November 2012, 04:58 AM	#379
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by marplots Philosophy has the power to make people feel uncomfortable. This is a good reason to keep it locked away. It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, I find the word games amusing. Quote: "Excuse me sir, I believe you are asking too many pointed questions here with no foreseeable resolution in sight. Please produce your license to philosophize or I shall have to beat you about the buttocks with my truncheon." "Kant. Emmanuel Kant, 007 -- licensed to query." I'm shaken , but not stirred. I have to get ready to appear before my public. You lot will have to find somebody else to toy with for the rest of the day. Cheers!
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

12th November 2012, 07:02 AM	#380
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 39,049	Originally Posted by Merton What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence. You can't know what you don't know.

12th November 2012, 07:47 AM	#381
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Merton What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence. How many philosophical quandaries did Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain answer before they got to work and invented the transistor? My guess is none.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

12th November 2012, 12:23 PM	#382
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Ah, you're both back. Originally Posted by tsig You can't know what you don't know. (I'm reading this as 'What isn't known is unknowable') Well, you don't know the colour of the carpet in my room, but you could know the colour of the carpet in my room. You don't know that there isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room, but that's because you can't know that there is or isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room. Originally Posted by dafydd How many philosophical quandaries did Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain answer before they got to work and invented the transistor? My guess is none. That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it. In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Last edited by Twiler; 12th November 2012 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Grammar

12th November 2012, 01:42 PM	#383
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 39,049	Originally Posted by Twiler Ah, you're both back. (I'm reading this as 'What isn't known is unknowable') Well, you don't know the colour of the carpet in my room, but you could know the colour of the carpet in my room. You don't know that there isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room, but that's because you can't know that there is or isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room. That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it. In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it. I see that once again you want to write my posts and answer them at the same time. (Protip, using the phrase "I'm reading this as" makes the straw all that more visible.)

12th November 2012, 02:19 PM	#384
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by tsig I see that once again you want to write my posts and answer them at the same time. (Protip, using the phrase "I'm reading this as" makes the straw all that more visible.) Perhaps I should try the new and innovative approach of asking you clarifying questions about your position? (Seriously, what do you want from me? You disapprove of me making assumptions, and you disapprove of me asking questions. In the circumstance when I don't know exactly what you mean, how can I continue the discussion without doing either one of those things?)
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

12th November 2012, 04:09 PM	#385
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it. And you don't need to grapple with philosophical quandaries in order to employ it. Quote: In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it. What kind of philosophical quandaries needed to be solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor? I can't think of any.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Last edited by dafydd; 12th November 2012 at 04:12 PM.

12th November 2012, 04:18 PM	#386
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd And you don't need to grapple with philosophical quandaries in order to employ it. Yes, that's what I meant. You don't need to understand philosophy to use science. Originally Posted by dafydd What kind of philosophical quandaries needed to be solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor? I can't think of any. We got to this point in the discussion from Merton's post earlier: Originally Posted by Merton What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence. -which provides the quandaries relevant to this subject. So, the discussion has gone: Merton: Here are some quandaries that need answering before we can do science. dafydd: The inventors of the transistor didn't consider those quandaries. Twiler: They wouldn't need to solve them themselves. dafydd: There aren't any quandaries that need answering to invent the transistor. EDIT: Actually, I can see a problem with what I've said here; There needs to be a better distinction between a specific group of people using science, and humanity in general using science. Someone needs to think about these quandaries for science to exist in a useful form, but it doesn't have to be the specific people engaging in scientific activity. You need the philosophy of science to avoid cargo cult science, where a method is followed, but not a method which provides meaningful results.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Last edited by Twiler; 12th November 2012 at 04:25 PM. Reason: Realized mistake

12th November 2012, 04:37 PM	#387
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler EDIT: Actually, I can see a problem with what I've said here; There needs to be a better distinction between a specific group of people using science, and humanity in general using science. Someone needs to think about these quandaries for science to exist in a useful form, but it doesn't have to be the specific people engaging in scientific activity. You need the philosophy of science to avoid cargo cult science, where a method is followed, but not a method which provides meaningful results. Do you have any specific quandaries in mind? I strongly suspect that many of these quandaries will be moral problems and not philosophical in nature.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Last edited by dafydd; 12th November 2012 at 04:39 PM.

12th November 2012, 04:42 PM	#388
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd Do you have any specific quandaries in mind? I strongly suspect that many of these quandaries will be moral problems and not philosophical in nature. I meant the quandaries in Merton's post: Quote: What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

12th November 2012, 05:06 PM	#389
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	What quandaries? The definitions of the words evidence and knowledge are quite well known. ''Boys, we can't go ahead and invent the transistor, we haven't figured out yet exactly what it is that we cannot know''
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

12th November 2012, 05:10 PM	#390
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd What quandaries? The definitions of the words evidence and knowledge are quite well known. ''Boys, we can't go ahead and invent the transistor, we haven't figured out yet exactly what it is that we cannot know'' They are now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them. (Actually, can you tell me what definitions you're thinking of so I can make sure we're thinking along the same lines?)
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

12th November 2012, 05:21 PM	#391
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler They are now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them. (Actually, can you tell me what definitions you're thinking of so I can make sure we're thinking along the same lines?) There are many dictionaries available. As for my thinking, I don't believe that the impenetrable word games of philosophy have anything to do with science and invention. Those that can, do. Those that kan't, philosophize.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

13th November 2012, 12:00 AM	#392
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd There are many dictionaries available. Repeated with emphasis: They (the meanings of evidence and knowledge) are (widely known) now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them. Originally Posted by dafydd As for my thinking, I don't believe that the impenetrable word games of philosophy have anything to do with science and invention. So, how do you think we got a scientific method that avoided the pitfall of cargo cult science? Originally Posted by dafydd Those that can, do. Those that kan't, philosophize. Descartes was a soldier, a mathematician and a teacher as well as a philosopher. That's just one example that overturns that theory.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

13th November 2012, 01:06 AM	#393
llwyd Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 395	Originally Posted by dafydd It all depends on your definition of logic. A scientist carrying out an experiment is doing something practical, not cogitating on neo-Kantian metaphysics or Spinoza's ethics. Of course the scientist has to think logically about his work but I wouldn't consider that to be a branch of philosophy. Well, I don't know about metaphysics, but I think ethics and morality are very important questions for us. The fact that philosophy is not a natural science doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Do you think that art and literature are meaningless too? Are only measurable, material things meaningful? And what exactly is their meaning?
llwyd Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 395

13th November 2012, 01:32 AM	#394
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,136	Sometimes I wonder if levi, with his repeated threads asking the same questions that he's received very direct answers to before, is some kind of self-justifying hoax by the the philosophy haters here.
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,136	__________________ _{Google search help}

13th November 2012, 04:05 AM	#395
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler So, how do you think we got a scientific method that avoided the pitfall of cargo cult science? Experiments.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398