ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

Notices


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 28th November 2012, 05:39 AM   #201
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,183
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Another straw man argument. Nobody said that scientists are god-like or that philosophers are moronic.

Just what use is philosophy in science? That's the question to which nobody has answered with anything substantive.
Popper certainly clarified what makes a scientific hypothesis scientific.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa 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 28th November 2012, 05:46 AM   #202
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,183
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Is this the crux of the argument, that philosophy is worthless because it has nothing "important" to tell to the god-like scientists who (we must presume) are the final arbiters of what we can know to be verifiability "true" about the world we live in?
In a word, yes.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa 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 28th November 2012, 06:23 AM   #203
BNRT
Muse
 
BNRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 700
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Just what use is philosophy in science? That's the question to which nobody has answered with anything substantive. [...]

Pigliucci is just trotting out the same arguments that have been seen here, but still not explaining what use, importance or relevance philosophy has for science.
Do you think for philosophy to be in any way important, it has to have a use in science? Do you hold different aspects of human life that are not science to the same standards?

Last edited by BNRT; 28th November 2012 at 06:25 AM. Reason: Spelling.
BNRT 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 28th November 2012, 06:34 AM   #204
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Before you get too crazy with the accusations of straw man arguments, who exactly said philosophy was "of use" to science in the sense that scientists need to look up a philosophy book to get science done? I don't remember seeing that exact claim.

You are ignoring the point that ethics and critical thinking, among other things, are generally subjects you have to go to the Philosophy department to study. If you think those subjects are of no use then there's not much of a basis for a conversation because a fruitful conversation requires both parties to be rational.
You are surely joking. The constant refrain is that somehow philosophy is important to science. Well without any evidence for that I can dismiss the claim.

OK so you seem to be withdrawing from that, well now show some evidence that philosophy has contributed anything to ethics.

Critical thinking certainly isn't a monopoly of philosophy you may be trained in it and use logical arguments but scientists have been doing that for years without training in philosophy.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 07:14 AM   #205
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Perhaps I can at last get a straight answer to straight question from the philosophy fans. What did philosophy have to do with the discovery of DNA? Hard facts this time please, not the usual vagueness.
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 28th November 2012, 07:30 AM   #206
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,168
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Ironically, the fact that the philosophy-bashers can't usefully define the "philosophy" they are attacking demonstrates that they could probably benefit from going to a university Philosophy department and doing a first year critical reasoning subject.
"Ironically, the fact that the god-bashers can't usefully define the "god" they are attacking demonstrates that they could probably benefit from going to a university Religion department and doing a first year religious reasoning subject."

Look familiar? Anyway, a)you are presuming that many of us haven't already gone and done this and, b)I'll personally leave it up to the philosophy people to offer definitions and work with those.

In fact, definitions have already been done in this thread, one most recently by tsig (perhaps considered by some to be one of the "philosophy-bashers" but maybe it'd be less emotionally charged to use the phrase "questioners of philosophy" ), so I'm not certain as to why you're making this statement anyway.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman 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 28th November 2012, 07:38 AM   #207
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,532
Philosophy is how it was determined that witches float because they're made out of wood.
WildCat 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 28th November 2012, 07:43 AM   #208
TeapotCavalry
Graduate Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,127
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
You are surely joking. The constant refrain is that somehow philosophy is important to science. Well without any evidence for that I can dismiss the claim.
Although this isn't the constant refrain, philosophy is somehow important to science. (The constant refrain is that philosophy isn't worthless). The problem is you don't specify what do you mean by importance or what you regard as important. This is why all this miscommunication is happening. Think of this: how important is syntax to spoken language? You can actually speak relatively proper English without knowing any rules of the language. Does that mean syntax is worthless to language? Or worthless overall, as has been hinted about philosophy? Philosophy is kind of like that syntax.

This polarity that either it is essential to science or it is worthless endeavor overall is a blatant false dilemma. Can we at least agree with this?

As already said, scientists don't need to know philosophy to do science, but philosophy describes the principles science actually works on and assumptions that are made (and that's just a tiny fraction of what philosophy deals with). You may not see the value in that. I don't know about others, but for me it certainly helps to understand the world better. (a question like "why does science work?" is essentially a philosophical questions, dealing with the problem of induction etc.)

Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Critical thinking certainly isn't a monopoly of philosophy you may be trained in it and use logical arguments but scientists have been doing that for years without training in philosophy.
So what? I don't see the problem here. Nobody has claimed monopoly on critical thinking.
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
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 28th November 2012, 07:44 AM   #209
TeapotCavalry
Graduate Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,127
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Philosophy is how it was determined that witches float because they're made out of wood.
Nope.
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
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 28th November 2012, 07:46 AM   #210
TeapotCavalry
Graduate Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,127
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Perhaps I can at last get a straight answer to straight question from the philosophy fans. What did philosophy have to do with the discovery of DNA? Hard facts this time please, not the usual vagueness.
Nothing as far as I'm aware.
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
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 28th November 2012, 07:56 AM   #211
TeapotCavalry
Graduate Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,127
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Is that an advanced philosophers trick, the strawman?

Spoiled was the word, it refers to the hapless witterings about many aspects of nature that were clarified by people we would term scientists going out, observing and formulating testable theories.

But it is the sheer arrogance of the pro-philosophers in considering that their hobby has anything of importance to tell scientists.
So, no real examples?
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
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 28th November 2012, 08:00 AM   #212
TeapotCavalry
Graduate Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,127
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
"Ironically, the fact that the god-bashers can't usefully define the "god" they are attacking demonstrates that they could probably benefit from going to a university Religion department and doing a first year religious reasoning subject."

Look familiar? Anyway, a)you are presuming that many of us haven't already gone and done this and, b)I'll personally leave it up to the philosophy people to offer definitions and work with those.

In fact, definitions have already been done in this thread, one most recently by tsig (perhaps considered by some to be one of the "philosophy-bashers" but maybe it'd be less emotionally charged to use the phrase "questioners of philosophy" ), so I'm not certain as to why you're making this statement anyway.
Indeed, definitions have already been done, but they seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Those questioners of philosophy still think philosophy claims to do science, needs to do science, and/or/but fails to do science, and is therefore somehow irrelevant and unimportant.
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
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 28th November 2012, 08:08 AM   #213
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,476
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Ironically, the fact that the philosophy-bashers can't usefully define the "philosophy" they are attacking demonstrates that they could probably benefit from going to a university Philosophy department and doing a first year critical reasoning subject.
Exactly the same argument that theists use "How can you argue against god if you can't define it".

So far when I've asked philosophy proponents to define it all I get is links, not their own definitions, would you care to try?
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 28th November 2012, 08:10 AM   #214
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,476
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
You're being silly again. Why would I ask a philosopher to confirm the existence of quarks? The existence of the quantum universe does, however, raise philosophical questions not, strictly speaking, answerable by science.

There also seems to be an unstated assumption here that any field of human knowledge or inquiry that cannot provide empirically (i.e., scientifically) verified answers is by definition worthless or beneath contempt.

ETA:

Massimo Pigliucci, philosopher and former scientist, on those who show "a fundamental distrust of (if not downright contempt for) philosophy, coupled with an overly enthusiastic endorsement of science."

Pigliucci in the linked article gives a good definition of philosophy.



Can any of the philosophy bashers tell us why such a field of inquiry can be summarily dismissed as "worthless"?
Since philosophy has been pondering the same subjects for thousands of years we might reasonably conclude that they have no answers for those questions.

Last edited by tsig; 28th November 2012 at 08:17 AM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:24 AM   #215
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,686
Hemlock anyone?

Walter Ego 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 28th November 2012, 08:32 AM   #216
TeapotCavalry
Graduate Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,127
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Exactly the same argument that theists use "How can you argue against god if you can't define it".

So far when I've asked philosophy proponents to define it all I get is links, not their own definitions, would you care to try?
Apart from it being simply false (I have provided my own definitions, not that it matters), here, how's that for you: Philosophy is the study of the nature of reality, knowledge, ethics, language and reason. Didn't copy-paste it, honest.

Now could you tell me what is the point of me telling you my half-assed, probably poorly phrased and certainly lacking definition of philosophy, when a more sufficient one is provided for us in any dictionary or encyclopedia?
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
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 28th November 2012, 08:45 AM   #217
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
Nothing as far as I'm aware.
So no real examples of the wonderful things that philosophy has done for us.
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 28th November 2012, 08:50 AM   #218
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Acleron
Quote:
You are surely joking. The constant refrain is that somehow philosophy is important to science. Well without any evidence for that I can dismiss the claim.
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
Although this isn't the constant refrain, philosophy is somehow important to science. (The constant refrain is that philosophy isn't worthless).
So it isn't the constant refrain but I'm going to repeat it. Sheesh.

Quote:
The problem is you don't specify what do you mean by importance or what you regard as important. This is why all this miscommunication is happening.
I'm not the one making the claim, supply your own evidence.

Quote:
Think of this: how important is syntax to spoken language? You can actually speak relatively proper English without knowing any rules of the language. Does that mean syntax is worthless to language? Or worthless overall, as has been hinted about philosophy? Philosophy is kind of like that syntax.
And the study of English grammar is totally irrelevant to using it. It may be an interesting study and obviously some are entranced with it. It also gives ammunition to the grammar police, but no harm in that either.


Quote:
This polarity that either it is essential to science or it is worthless endeavor overall is a blatant false dilemma. Can we at least agree with this?
No you certainly don't get agreement. I'm talking about philosophy and science. Whether it has any utility elsewhere is a different argument and one you need to prove.

Quote:
As already said, scientists don't need to know philosophy to do science, but philosophy describes the principles science actually works on and assumptions that are made (and that's just a tiny fraction of what philosophy deals with). You may not see the value in that. I don't know about others, but for me it certainly helps to understand the world better. (a question like "why does science work?" is essentially a philosophical questions, dealing with the problem of induction etc.)
The answer to the question 'Why does science work?' has not been answered by philosophers. It is answered by the observation that it is the only method we have found that achieves extension of knowledge. We have tried other methods such as religion and philosophy and they didn't achieve so much if anything at all. But perhaps my knowledge is out of date, perhaps an algebra has been devised that allows the proof of some reason that science is so successful.


Quote:
So what? I don't see the problem here. Nobody has claimed monopoly on critical thinking.
Good, then there is no requirement to spend a year in a philosophy department.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:52 AM   #219
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Here's a real philosopher.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
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 28th November 2012, 08:57 AM   #220
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,686
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
Apart from it being simply false (I have provided my own definitions, not that it matters), here, how's that for you: Philosophy is the study of the nature of reality, knowledge, ethics, language and reason. Didn't copy-paste it, honest.

Now could you tell me what is the point of me telling you my half-assed, probably poorly phrased and certainly lacking definition of philosophy, when a more sufficient one is provided for us in any dictionary or encyclopedia?
Philosophy: A worthless pseudo-intellectual activity that would arrogantly tell scientists how to do science.

I think that just about sums it up. Who says these forums are not educational?
Walter Ego 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 28th November 2012, 09:02 AM   #221
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Philosophy: A worthless pseudo-intellectual activity that would arrogantly tell scientists how to do science.
And a nice job if you can get it. Make it up as you go along, no need for facts or evidence.
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 28th November 2012, 09:09 AM   #222
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
If there are objective criteria for philosophy then perhaps some one could tell me which philosophers got things right and which ones missed the mark, and how this can be proven.
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 28th November 2012, 09:16 AM   #223
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
So, no real examples?
To what?

You want to talk about scientists foiling philosophers. I'm not aware of any scientists going out to actively foil a philosopher but I suppose there were plenty of examples of departmental politics, even in those days.

The philosophy being spoiled by the advances of science is obvious and apparent even in the left over bits that pervade science, such as the PhD awarded by universities. Science was the domain of philosophy, but people kept finding out pesky facts.

But for a real laugh, let us look at a modern day Philosophy Department. The Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford reckons itself to be the one of the foremost philosophy centres in the world. It is embarking on a new study the Philosophy of Cosmology. Lets just ignore that this is actually an old study that cosmologists took over and started achieving progress for the first time. Instead let us look at who is pushing this new study.

Quote:
Templeton grant funds initiative at top universities in philosophy

In a new partnership between Oxford and Cambridge, researchers in physics and philosophy Simon Saunders, Joe Silk, and David Wallace at Oxford University, and John Barrow and Jeremy Butterfield at Cambridge, are to join researchers at a cluster of US universities including Columbia University, Yale University, and New York University, to establish the field of philosophy of cosmology as a new branch of philosophy of physics.
Yup, that's right the Templeton Foundation, our old friends of woo and religion.

And people wonder why some scientists look down on philosophy.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 09:17 AM   #224
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,413
Originally Posted by PixyMisa
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Another straw man argument. Nobody said that scientists are god-like or that philosophers are moronic.

Just what use is philosophy in science? That's the question to which nobody has answered with anything substantive.
Popper certainly clarified what makes a scientific hypothesis scientific.

Via an epistemological philosophy he titled critical rationalism.

Karl Popper was a philosopher you know.
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent 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 28th November 2012, 09:19 AM   #225
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Via an epistemological philosophy he titled critical rationalism.
Why not rational criticism and philosophical epistemology.? Or rational epistemology and philosophical criticism?

Last edited by dafydd; 28th November 2012 at 09:24 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 28th November 2012, 09:20 AM   #226
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,413
Ask Popper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent 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 28th November 2012, 09:29 AM   #227
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Thank you. Hilarious!

''Critical rationalists hold that scientific theories and any other claims to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them. Thus claims to knowledge may be contrastingly and normatively evaluated. They are either falsifiable and thus empirical (in a very broad sense), or not falsifiable and thus non-empirical. Those claims to knowledge that are potentially falsifiable can then be admitted to the body of empirical science, and then further differentiated according to whether they are retained or are later actually falsified. If retained, yet further differentiation may be made on the basis of how much subjection to criticism they have received, how severe such criticism has been, and how probable the theory is, with the least[1] probable theory that still withstands attempts to falsify it being the one to be preferred. That it is the least[1] probable theory that is to be preferred is one of the contrasting differences between critical rationalism and classical views on science, such as positivism, who hold that one should instead accept the most probable theory. (The least probable theory is the one with the highest information content and most open to future falsification.) Critical Rationalism as a discourse positioned itself against what its proponents took to be epistemologically relativist philosophies, particularly post-modernist or sociological approaches to knowledge. Critical rationalism has it that knowledge is objective (in the sense of being embodied in various substrates and in the sense of not being reducible to what humans individually "know"), and also that truth is objective (exists independently of social mediation or individual perception, but is "really real").''

In other words ''do the experiment and see what happens.''
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 28th November 2012, 09:30 AM   #228
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Popper certainly clarified what makes a scientific hypothesis scientific.
Yes he did and for that we can be thankful. But you were careful to say 'clarified' He formally stated the principles of falsifiability and prediction and although some scientists deny the former principle as an essential for a theory, in general, it holds up very well. But the principles were already known. The moment predictions were made on the basis of science theory, a theory could be disproved.


What would have been an achievement for philosophy was to formulate Popper's principles 2000 years ago. Think on what that could have done for our thinking.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 09:35 AM   #229
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Via an epistemological philosophy he titled critical rationalism.

Karl Popper was a philosopher you know.
The arguments get closer to religion all the time.

Elsewhere on a religious site I mentioned George Boole and the instant response was

George Boole was a Christian you know.

As it happens, I have never met a scientist who didn't know that. But as I discuss above, he had to observe real science before writing his principles.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 10:54 AM   #230
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 34,667
If a philosopher falls in the middle of an empty philosophy classroom, did he make a sound at all?
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins 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 28th November 2012, 11:03 AM   #231
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,686
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
If a philosopher falls in the middle of an empty philosophy classroom, did he make a sound at all?
Probably not. Science has the answer to all our questions, and if it doesn't the questions are not worth asking.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 28th November 2012 at 11:07 AM.
Walter Ego 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 28th November 2012, 11:03 AM   #232
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,546
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Just what use is philosophy in science? That's the question to which nobody has answered with anything substantive.
(snip)
Pigliucci is just trotting out the same arguments that have been seen here, but still not explaining what use, importance or relevance philosophy has for science.
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
^ This
I'm beginning to think no answer will suffice, but I'll try yet again.

Here's a paper in philosophy with a direct application to evolutionary theory:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3035...paperFinal.pdf

There are many like these. Philosophy and science are not at odds. They are simply two different methods of trying to understand reality. Science limits itself to empiricism, philosophy does not.

And to drive the point home, here's one by a philosopher (sorry, abstracts only): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.108...21101370328793
Cited by an entomologist: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...nticated=false

Last edited by marplots; 28th November 2012 at 11:14 AM.
marplots is online now   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 28th November 2012, 11:05 AM   #233
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
In the recent New Scientist 24/11/12, Eric Scerri, a lecturer in chemistry, and the history and philosophy of science writes an opinion piece article.

He sets up two groups, the scientific realists and the anti-realists. Scientific realists hold that for example particles such as electrons are real while anti-realists 'stop short of taking the additional leap of faith'. (It appears to me he has the two labels the wrong way around and that it is a false dichotomy as there is a third group, the don't knows.

He cites John Worrall, a philosopher of science, who claims that the parts of Fresnel's theory of light being a disturbance in an aether are incorporated into Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. Because of this he further claims that Fresnel had the correct structure of light. Presumably this means that there must be an aether. This is supported by other philosophers (well duh!).

There is more of this balderdash for two whole pages including a diversion into the colour of gold being explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. (So?)

His final statement is:
Quote:
If I am right (the only mention so far he could be wrong), he and his colleagues deserve real credit for offering a way out of this long standing, bitterly fought over, utterly fundamental question
There is certainly discussion of the major point he made but while we can still predict what is going to happen in biology, chemistry and physics then it is of minor interest. If someone could prove that electrons etc are real particles then I suppose it might make further predictions easier, but no philosopher is going to do that.

So after all this, what have Scerri and Worrall contributed to science? Zilch.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:20 AM   #234
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,546
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
If there are objective criteria for philosophy then perhaps some one could tell me which philosophers got things right and which ones missed the mark, and how this can be proven.
It's proven the same way it is in science: peer review.

Cartesian dualism is an idea that has been dropped, as an example. Ayn Rand's objectivism has been dumped as well. There are others.

Here's an example of Rand being taken to task by a philosopher: http://www.kiekeben.com/rand.html

And here's a lecture from Oxford that kills Descarte in the first five minutes:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by marplots; 28th November 2012 at 11:42 AM.
marplots is online now   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 28th November 2012, 11:46 AM   #235
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,546
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Perhaps I can at last get a straight answer to straight question from the philosophy fans. What did philosophy have to do with the discovery of DNA? Hard facts this time please, not the usual vagueness.
Hard fact (from Wiki):
Gregor Mendel, "From 1840 to 1843, he studied practical and theoretical philosophy as well as physics at the University of Olomouc Faculty of Philosophy, taking a year off because of illness."

Good enough or shall we have another round?
marplots is online now   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 28th November 2012, 11:48 AM   #236
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
It's proven the same way it is in science: peer review.

Cartesian dualism is an idea that has been dropped, as an example. Ayn Rand's objectivism has been dumped as well. There are others.

Here's an example of Rand being taken to task by a philosopher: http://www.kiekeben.com/rand.html

And here's a lecture from Oxford that kills Descarte in the first five minutes:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
What is the current theory of philosophy that is accepted by most philosophers?
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 28th November 2012, 11:52 AM   #237
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Hard fact (from Wiki):
Gregor Mendel, "From 1840 to 1843, he studied practical and theoretical philosophy as well as physics at the University of Olomouc Faculty of Philosophy, taking a year off because of illness."

Good enough or shall we have another round?
Why not. He is remembered as a scientist. How did his study of philosophy help with his work on genetics? What kind of philosophy was it? If he had studied another branch of philosophy would he made his genetic discoveries? If he had never studied philosophy would we have heard of him?
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 28th November 2012, 11:54 AM   #238
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
It's proven the same way it is in science: peer review.
What kind of exams have these peers passed?
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 28th November 2012, 11:56 AM   #239
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,546
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
What kind of exams have these peers passed?
They earn PhD's mostly.
What's that stand for again?
marplots is online now   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 28th November 2012, 12:03 PM   #240
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
They earn PhD's mostly.
What's that stand for again?
PhDs in philosophy. QED.
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.