Exactly what it says on the tin. What good is philosophy? How involved was it in the generation of of our modern ideas and technology?
|
Exactly what it says on the tin. What good is philosophy? How involved was it in the generation of of our modern ideas and technology?
Philosophy is really all about 'thinking well' and as such it is fundamental to science, politics, culture and society. So I would say that without philosophy you wouldn't have any ideas or technology.
A lot of people hear philosophy and think wishy washy eggheads contemplating abstract concepts. Philosophy, to me, is just the application of reason on those abstract concepts. If (some) people didn't continually think about why they do what they do things would never change, so in a way philosophy is all about change. You examine your behavior or beliefs, decide whether it is the best course of action either prudentially or morally, and your conclusion either 1)reinforces your behavior and beliefs or 2)forces you to change.
In a general sense I think philosophy provides the baseline for everything else. Philosophy, in its inward examination, has lead us to decide that things like science should be put above superstition when deciding policy because it can be proven.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a general sense I think philosophy provides the baseline for everything else. Philosophy, in its inward examination, has lead us to decide that things like science should be put above superstition when deciding policy because it can be proven.
I think the reason that science rises above philosophy is because the universe is simply too complicated to figure out in your head. When you get a good idea, chances are that its wrong anyway, so you need to test it to see if it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Philosophy is as much about overall logic as specific ideas. It provides a general framework in which the specific sciences can operate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a general sense I think philosophy provides the baseline for everything else. Philosophy, in its inward examination, has lead us to decide that things like science should be put above superstition when deciding policy because it can be proven.I think the reason that science rises above philosophy is because the universe is simply too complicated to figure out in your head. When you get a good idea, chances are that its wrong anyway, so you need to test it to see if it works.
The point she was making is that philosophy/reason created the standard by which rigorous scientific examination is judged. Philosophy can't be separated from reason, which is the building block of every social and natural science; a formalized system of doubt and continual reexamination of something's fundamental principles.
The original term philosophy contained all these subjects. A PhD is a doctor of philosophy, biology/geology/climatology/chemistry being a philosophical discipline.
The point she was making is that philosophy/reason created the standard by which rigorous scientific examination is judged
Philosophy really can't make a claim to being all thought or reason that humans use. I know "what is philosophy" is a hard question in philosophy but we need to draw the line somewhere.
The tables have turned however. We don't use philosophy to judge scientific ideas.
The doctorate of philosophy thing is just a hold over from when the two were one in the same. Time to get past it and ditch the trappings of philosophy entirely
*burns Popper in effigy*
Except that philosophy remains a key part of science. Maybe not a directly used part, but it does still influence how we judge science. We expect experiments to be done is such and such a way, and for scientists to use a commonly accepted lingo. People who choose different approaches and lingo get significantly more scrutiny and disbelief that they have to overcome before their ideas are accepted. That is what philosophy establishes: the basic framework in which everything is guided by.
Sun, could you be a little more specific?
The tables have turned however. We don't use philosophy to judge scientific ideas.
Actually...we absolutely unequivocally do. We use reason to determine whether an effect logically follows from a cause, and furthermore we use reason to tease apart one cause from another, an essential part of the scientific process. Basically that's all the scientific process is.
What do YOU mean by philosophy that is causing this disconnect? Clearly your narrow definition isn't jibing with the rest of us in this thread so let's define some terms, shall we?
The fact that nothing gets changed without a rational argument to support its change, whether that's science or politics or what have you, goes to show how ubiquitous the principles of philosophy are. I think you're just not seeing philosophy because it's SO ubiquitous you don't even question it any more.
Sun, could you be a little more specific?
Philosophy may not be used directly to judge science, but it certainly plays a role in our perception of whether the answers provided fit into our worldview. For example, science proved very early that the earth rotates around the sun, but the prevailing philosophy of the middle ages prevented that from becoming accepted for several centuries.
Philosophy may not be used directly to judge science, but it certainly plays a role in our perception of whether the answers provided fit into our worldview. For example, science proved very early that the earth rotates around the sun, but the prevailing philosophy of the middle ages prevented that from becoming accepted for several centuries.
So.. philosophy=badwrong.
Welcome to team philistine!
Actually...we absolutely unequivocally do. We use reason to determine whether an effect logically follows from a cause
Do we? Is there a formal process for that, or do we just look at the argument and subjectively decide if it makes sense or not?
What do YOU mean by philosophy that is causing this disconnect? Clearly your narrow definition isn't jibing with the rest of us in this thread so let's define some terms, shall we?
Hard to put into words. I'm inclined to call it science without the experiment.
Philosophy: the attempt to figure out how the world works from what you already know about the world using only that information and a level of reasoning which qualifies as objective.
Feel free to hate on my definition, i don't like it and i don't think the dictionary does much better.
Oohh Here's one I like
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy
The fact that nothing gets changed without a rational argument to support its change, whether that's science or politics or what have you, goes to show how ubiquitous the principles of philosophy are.
The VENEER of philosophic principles are evident, but i rarely see any substance in them. It mostly comes down to picking the argument that agrees with you and shouting "is not are 2" that people use to support their preconceived notions.
I think there's a reason philosophy developed terminology for logical fallacies. It NEEDED to be able to classify different species of malarky because the malarky is
I think you're just not seeing philosophy because it's SO ubiquitous you don't even question it any more.
Example?
I find your lack of Philosophy disturbing.
And slightly erotic. ;)
Philosophy may not be used directly to judge science, but it certainly plays a role in our perception of whether the answers provided fit into our worldview. For example, science proved very early that the earth rotates around the sun, but the prevailing philosophy of the middle ages prevented that from becoming accepted for several centuries.So.. philosophy=badwrong.
Welcome to team philistine!
If you wish to call it that, feel free, but philosophy tends to shape our perceptions, and this is carried over to what research is deemed worthwhile, and what generally isn't. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. Science made the atom bomb, philosophy has been part of what has kept us from obliterating ourselves.
The world is too big/too complex for science. Science is good only for the small problems. This is why Economics, to pick one of many examples, is not a true science.In a general sense I think philosophy provides the baseline for everything else. Philosophy, in its inward examination, has lead us to decide that things like science should be put above superstition when deciding policy because it can be proven.I think the reason that science rises above philosophy is because the universe is simply too complicated to figure out in your head. When you get a good idea, chances are that its wrong anyway, so you need to test it to see if it works.
No, economics is math. Economics is Math in one of its purest forms. It's just that it's math that has to interact with all sorts of irrational people.
People are inherently irrational. They have to be taught rational argument and, to be realistic here, approximately zero percent learn it.
Philosophy started as a way to twist reality into a form irrational enough for the human mind to comprehend. Science and math in their pure rational roots can attempt to drag humanity towards rational thought but there's an asymptotic approach towards rationality.
Philosophy irrationalizes reality so we can understand it. But this means we will never experience reality because reality is rational and what we sense is irrational. But since no one sends search parties to Plato's Cave no one trapped within cares.
For example, science proved very early that the earth rotates around the sunNo, it didn't.
Mathematics (which isn't science) showed early on that the model is more elegant if the planets revolve around the sun, but which revolves around which is just a frame of reference problem.
The ability to explain and predict natural phenomenon is in fact in the purview of science. There was no explanation for the apparent retrograde motion of planets. The obvious answer was ignored because the philosophy/religion at the time wouldn't accept it, even after the prevailing philosophy/religion had been shown demonstrably wrong by the presence of moons around jupiter.
In other words, a lot more went into the decision than math.
approximately zero percent learn it.
pfffth. Optimist
Philosophy started as a way to twist reality into a form irrational enough for the human mind to comprehend. Science and math in their pure rational roots can attempt to drag humanity towards rational thought but there's an asymptotic approach towards rationality.Philosophy irrationalizes reality so we can understand it. But this means we will never experience reality because reality is rational and what we sense is irrational. But since no one sends search parties to Plato's Cave no one trapped within cares.
You're so wrong it makes me cry.
Philosophy IS THE BASIS of formal reason and logic.Which is the basis of the scientific method. The scientific method is basically just formal reasoning reverse-engineered. Philosophers will argue and investigate one point or another based on claims under the assumption that the claims are true, science just goes one step further and says "wait, we now have the ability to varify those absolute claims" thus enhancing the argument. Science is ONE LONG ONGOING ARGUMENT about the state of existence
@BNW-Examples of the ubiquity of philosophy-every time you hear someone arguing rationally or debating. Even if it is imperfect, the current republican primary debates are an example of precisely what philosophers in ancient greece used to do. Editorial columns in newspapers or on blogs. Every argument we've been in about politics on these boards come down to philosophy. Trying to trace back an opponents argument to see the point your views diverge. The fact that people don't always listen to reason doesn't refute its ubiquity.
Philosophy in its purest form is a mental exercise. Attempting to predict the outcome of something based on assumptions or facts. It's theorycrafting. But theory is just as important to the process as the application of the facts. Philosophy is the form, science is the content.
This is so wrong, philosophy Is not by any means the basis of formal reason neither logic....
From Wikipedia: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.
As someone who has and is studying philosophy, you don't know what you're talking about. Philosophy is the basis of formal reasoning. Yes, we all can reason with our minds but it's not innate, you have to train your mind NOT to fall into logical fallacies and other traps. When you read philosophical papers, that's all they are are big, long, rational arguments. Often about things we can't reasonably know about (the afterlife, for example) but nonetheless arguments based on assumptions. In science we insist that all such assumptions be empirical facts. That's about the only fundamental difference.
Again, I think a lot of people have this really weird idea of what philosophy is and what philosophers do. They just try to explain things using the means at their disposal.
The VENEER of philosophic principles are evident, but i rarely see any substance in them. It mostly comes down to picking the argument that agrees with you and shouting "is not are 2" that people use to support their preconceived notions.
Well okay, but the "you" in this argument has beliefs. How did one arrive upon those beliefs? Philosophy in this context is the process of rational self-reflection by which one's beliefs are changed or reaffirmed. Even if person A chooses candidate X because his beliefs fall in line with his own, assuming he is a rational input, he arrived at his beliefs through this process of self-reflection.
One can argue that it all boils down to subjective claims (I love America!) or objective claims that can't be empirically confirmed (there is a god) but a belief system is a latticework built upon that rationally. The role of philosophy, and reason, is to help people to prune that latticework of interwoven assumptions. My point is that it's something we all do. If we didn't it would be chaos.
There are a lot of different schools of philosophy. The way you talk about it I can only imagine that you think of all philosophy as being metaphysics. Ethics is basically the philosophy of morality. Ethics, as a school of philosophy, has an immense influence on the political landscape today.
Exactly what it says on the tin. What good is philosophy? How involved was it in the generation of of our modern ideas and technology?
Philosophy is an opiate for the mind. It numbs the blinding fear of dieing we all have, because we all know one day we'll be dead.
Is it practical? I throw out an empirical observation -- with all our philosophy(s) we still have hunger in our world, and hunger is deemed to be a human creation.
But it fills your days, and occupies your mind. In the end, no one cares what you (I mean you) think.
OH you just make one of the biggest mistake of philosophers. IF you name it you create it. god is the been that escense is to exist therefore he exist (st thomas again i do not konw how to spell it in english)
You can name it the way you want but philosophe is not systematic, and no philosopher (generally speaking) do not use the means at their disposal, they tend to close the window to the world outside and concentrat in the dreams of their minds
(i think therefore i exist and surprise god exist)
NOTE: i use ontological examples becouse they are so comun, but i personaly have nothing against the existence of god
I'm going to be as kind as I can. I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's completely incoherent. Don't try posting on an English language message board.
You also seem to be arguing about the existence of god but not backing up any such claims. I can just as easily say there is no god, but with no proof either way we're best leaving it out of the discussion.
can you give an example of this rigurous way of thinkinh? an i do not mean for example the excelent work of aristotele about biology I mean real philosophyThe point she was making is that philosophy/reason created the standard by which rigorous scientific examination is judged.In a general sense I think philosophy provides the baseline for everything else. Philosophy, in its inward examination, has lead us to decide that things like science should be put above superstition when deciding policy because it can be proven.I think the reason that science rises above philosophy is because the universe is simply too complicated to figure out in your head. When you get a good idea, chances are that its wrong anyway, so you need to test it to see if it works.
"real" philosophy. So you want me to prove you wrong as some sort of test using only philosophy YOU deem as "real". No.
OH you just make one of the biggest mistake of philosophers. IF you name it you create it. god is the been that escense is to exist therefore he exist (st thomas again i do not konw how to spell it in english)
You can name it the way you want but philosophe is not systematic, and no philosopher (generally speaking) do not use the means at their disposal, they tend to close the window to the world outside and concentrat in the dreams of their minds
(i think therefore i exist and surprise god exist)
NOTE: i use ontological examples becouse they are so comun, but i personaly have nothing against the existence of god
I'm going to be as kind as I can. I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's completely incoherent. Don't try posting on an English language message board.
You also seem to be arguing about the existence of god but not backing up any such claims. I can just as easily say there is no god, but with no proof either way we're best leaving it out of the discussion.
Sorry if my english is note the best i will try to explain better
1) you quoted wikipedia to define philosophy then i quaote Thomas Aquinas because that quaote is an example of the mistake you make. He claim that god exist because he can define it, you claims that philosophy is rationale because wikipedia defided it that way.
You are completely conflating these two things.
Are you arguing that philosophy isn't a thing?
i say that philosophy is not rationale nor a good way of thinking (most of the times, is good to have hume)
Ok. Give me an example of how philosophy is irrational?
Ok. Give me an example of how philosophy is irrational?
i say that philosophy is not rationale nor a good way of thinking (most of the times, is good to have hume)Good to be asked :) .
First the quaoted from thomas aquinas, clearly (as khant pointed) is a falacy, he start saying good exist and concludes that god exist. and he bases entire treatises about refining that falacy, and he a very important philosopher of his time.
descartes make that a lot of circular reasoning.
now your example of ratinal philosophy
Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's irrational. I have a hard time defending Aquinas because he was so wrong, but the conclusions he bases on his assumptions do logically follow. There is a reason, a method, to his treatises.
Personally I think the Romans had the right idea when they made it illegal to be a Philosopher in 177 BCE
The problem isn't that science can't answer everything the problem is that philosophy doesn't answer ANYTHING.