| 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.
Believe me when I tell you that philosophy informs the way every large technological business functions. Go on and do some research on Toyota. Go find out what Lean Six Sigma is. How about Scrum? Most major business models rely on some kind of philosophy as their backbones. Steve Jobs hasn't been gone a month yet, yet somehow it's already forgotten how much his understanding of philosophy shaped everything Apple does?
And can you deny Sun Tzu? Machiavelli? Those were philosophers, too.
Moreover, philosophy does not encompass only abstract thought from ancient dudes wearing white beards and robes. The first philosophy class most of us take is Critical Thinking. If more people paid attention to it, this country would not be so, frankly, ignorant and ready to believe every angry lie certain politicians and fat radio show hosts throw at them.
|
Or go for the sophists. They can give you whatever you want.I'm not the only one with jokes...
It would have to be a very good sophist to get me an actual pizza.
Oh.. wait.. he's probably working delivery anyway.
You got the joke! Holy crap! Kudos to you, sir.
Well mostly that when I ask "what do you do with philosophy" I either get no answer, questions as "answers", or someone decides to call all thinking philosophy. Could just be the nature of philosophers, but it seems that if there were better answers I would have found them by now.
What do you do with biology? "Cure diseases!"
What do you do with physics? "Launch stuff in the air and make it hit the spot we want!"
What do you do with chemistry "Blow stuff up!"I mean, under what circumstances do you ever shout "I need a philosopher, stat!
You actually bring up a good question here. The classic example I give is of Jurgen Habermas attempting to aid in the setting of policy regarding genetic engineering of humanity into the future. There is a real reason to consider his arguments. There is a book you should look for called "The Future of Human Nature," A short read but it gets the point across.
Additionally, I'll point to the group of philosophers who call themselves pragmatists (of which Habermas could be considered one). They've written up several critiques of positions similar to what you're asserting.
Lastly, I'll point you toward Nietzsche, because any 12 year old can understand his wasted, pointless, and barren outlook.
You got the joke! Holy crap! Kudos to you, sir.
I am a philistine by choice, not lack of education.
You actually bring up a good question here. The classic example I give is of Jurgen Habermas attempting to aid in the setting of policy regarding genetic engineering of humanity into the future. There is a real reason to consider his arguments. There is a book you should look for called "The Future of Human Nature," A short read but it gets the point across.
How about the cliff notes version?
Lastly, I'll point you toward Nietzsche, because any 12 year old can understand his wasted, pointless, and barren outlook.
....? In another conversation that would look like a nasty insult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That proves neither of those concepts. Try again.
Why? Nothing gets proved philosophically. Its like a set of chopsticks complaining that a forklift can't pick up mt rushmore.
This statement kind of rubs me the wrong way. Via arguments of reduction, nothing is ever uniformally proven. Positive statements are, by nature, very difficult to prove. The same is true of scientific theories.
Descartes proved that "I exist" was a positive statement. Primitive I'll grant, but an important intellectual landmark.
I think the root of all philosophy is human curiosity - the big questions of how and why that have, directly, been the root of all human advancement. If you'll allow me a little dramatic leeway in my meandering, questioning is at the very core of philosophy... and if mankind never questioned we really wouldn't have gone anywhere.
When we talk about succesful people, we often wonder about their philosophies and seek to emulate them. Design philosophies have driven market developement before.
Here's a rhetorical exercise for you big norse wolf, You've made a positive assertion that nothing has been proven philosophically. Care to prove that statement? Also, let's get some proof that philosophy is useless.
A warped version of Nietzsche's philosophy was used to spur on the germans before WWII.
I like philosophy because it makes great science fiction.
Actually in all seriousness, this ted talk is highly relevant.
Take one of two foundational principles of science; empiricism or materialism (your choice) and give me non-philosophical arguments that they are true.
I should stay out of this, but it would seem to me that the principles can be judged on their raw predictive power -- i.e., if I use them, my hypotheses are more often born out by experiment than if I don't. That's not really philosophy; it's observing and counting on your fingers.
Prove to me you are all not just in my mind.
You can not.
Prove to me you are all not just in my mind.
You can not.
That sounds like a problem in your own mind, then, and hence not our responsibility to disprove.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prove to me you are all not just in my mind.You can not.
Pshaw! I'd have to be some sort of evil mastermind, with power only equalled by my deceptive nature. Of course, maybe I have your brain in a jar with electrodes hooked up to it that are sending you false sights sounds tastes and feelings...
Descartes proved that "I exist" was a positive statement. Primitive I'll grant, but an important intellectual landmark.
Great. 2000 years of universities and philosophers and you've managed to philosophically demonstrate.. something every 3 year old figures out on their own.
and if mankind never questioned we really wouldn't have gone anywhere.
Its not philosophy's generation of questions that i don't like, its a combination of
1) Its inability to answer them
2) The smug self assurance that if something isn't proven philosophically it hasn't really been proven
3) The irrational contradiction between 1 and 2.
When we talk about succesful people, we often wonder about their philosophies and seek to emulate them. Design philosophies have driven market developement before.
Equivocation. That's a different idea under the same name.
Philosophy is simply the discipline where "common sense" is not an accepted answer.
Math: has postulates based on common sense
How do you know know through any two points there is a line?
How do you know the sum of the lengths of two sides of any triangle is greater than the length of the third side?
How do you know the sum of the lengths of three sides of any quadrilateral is greater than the length of the fourth side?
Physics: Theorems based on mathematics
Chemistry: based on physics
Biology: based on chemistry
Psychology, sociology, medicine, other sciences involving studies: all use statistics to prove points, which is math.
Nothing can be proven. It can just be shown to be likely.
Edit: I said thermos not theorem *head slap*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well mostly that when I ask "what do you do with philosophy" I either get no answer, questions as "answers", or someone decides to call all thinking philosophy. Could just be the nature of philosophers, but it seems that if there were better answers I would have found them by now.What do you do with biology? "Cure diseases!"
What do you do with physics? "Launch stuff in the air and make it hit the spot we want!"
What do you do with chemistry "Blow stuff up!"I mean, under what circumstances do you ever shout "I need a philosopher, stat!
So, you think every science is only about practical results? What do you do with philosophy? You do philosophy for the sake of doing philosophy. Or do you only judge a discipline by its practical outcomes?
What about the evolution theory in biology? What about the theoritical physicist work on the Big Bang or Black holes, or dark matter or Calabi-Yau spaces?
Philosophy is a theoritical discipline, with few direct applications (but as as been already argued, plenty of indirect results emerged from philosophical frames.)
If you only gives value to practical and technological advances, you are right. Philosophy is mainly useless, and only serves to frame scientific results in as a coherent and cohesive way it is possible to do by speculative analysis. Sometimes, as a result, it will be giving science a new problem scientists will be able to solve using the scientific method.
Sometimes (but rarely) it will be giving the logical basis upon which a tecnology is able to emerge (like formal logic, which was put forward by Frege and Russell in order to anwser ontological questions, gave the basis of computer sciences, which also needed a lot of physics to be able to become real.)
Want other modern examples? Just read about the influence contemporary ontology had on physics. Multiple universes theory, now widly agreed upon by physicists? Originated in Leibniz, and given a logical frame by David K. Lewis in order to awnser a question about counterfactual claims.
Theory of time and space? Again, Newton's idea of absolute space-time, later rejected by Einstein, was an improvement on Descartes. Einstein got part of his mojo by reading Mach, who himself got his criticism of Newton from Leibniz's relative space theory.
So, what do you want? So I guess yes, philosophy is mostly "useless" in that very narrow way it is theoritical and aim to undertand for understanding's sake, and is not directly tied to technological advances. As a big part of science is theoritical and have no direct application, I fail to see the problem.
It that way, it is as useless as it is to understand what happened a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, or how evolution works.
If your mind is only interrested in practical stuff, good for you.
What I don't understand is your need to belittle theoritical thinking.
|
|
You got the joke! Holy crap! Kudos to you, sir.I am a philistine by choice, not lack of education.
You actually bring up a good question here. The classic example I give is of Jurgen Habermas attempting to aid in the setting of policy regarding genetic engineering of humanity into the future. There is a real reason to consider his arguments. There is a book you should look for called "The Future of Human Nature," A short read but it gets the point across.How about the cliff notes version?
Lastly, I'll point you toward Nietzsche, because any 12 year old can understand his wasted, pointless, and barren outlook.....? In another conversation that would look like a nasty insult.
It speaks more to Nietzsche than to anyone else.
Cliff notes version?
Humanity has "authenticity" inherently. It is an existential basis for what makes us, well, us. Existentialism says that we are what we make of ourselves. Every person is born from a certain randomness, limited in only slight ways based upon your heritage, environment, and physical make up. Sometimes you'll be gifted in some aspect, other times you won't be. What happens when genetic engineers begin to tamper with one of those things that makes you, well, you?
Habermas goes into a break down of why he thinks that there are two kinds of genetic engineering(which in the english translation has some issues because of the way things are named). He calls both a form of eugenics, considering his German background. There is positive eugenics, which is the addition of advantageous traits to an individual, and there is negative eugenics, which is the removal of adverse traits.
He describes the potential for an individual, before he is even born, to be designed for a purpose other than what he gives himself. This allows for an existential crisis. How can you be you if someone else has dictated your traits?
Habermas concludes that the removal of suffering is good, therefore he advocates for policies and regulations that would allow for negative eugenics. He believes that negative eugenics benefits allow for a person to still be "authentic". He advocates that positive eugenics not be allowed since it creates a situation where a person's very existence is questionable. He also makes some innuendo along the lines of wealth and health, considering his Marxist influences.
This philosophy of his is designed to benefit people. There is an inherent good to it, and helps to create policy and predict the need for potential legislation. Therefore, philosophy has a direct effect upon the very society we live in and gives us a basis for judging what is good.
Descartes proved that "I exist" was a positive statement. Primitive I'll grant, but an important intellectual landmark.Great. 2000 years of universities and philosophers and you've managed to philosophically demonstrate.. something every 3 year old figures out on their own.
and if mankind never questioned we really wouldn't have gone anywhere.Its not philosophy's generation of questions that i don't like, its a combination of
1) Its inability to answer them
2) The smug self assurance that if something isn't proven philosophically it hasn't really been proven
3) The irrational contradiction between 1 and 2.When we talk about succesful people, we often wonder about their philosophies and seek to emulate them. Design philosophies have driven market developement before.Equivocation. That's a different idea under the same name.
The "I Exist" argument was pretty groundshaking when it happened. Maybe you should read into it a bit more, and I hardly think that 3 year olds can grasp the concepts descartes was presenting. Otherwise it would have drawn less acclaim and more comments of "Descartes, stop acting like a three year old". No doubt, his entry in the history books would have been "Descartes : cook that acted like a three year old" but, I digress, and you're allowed a little hyperbole in your posts, so, moving along....
1. Philosophy answers plenty of questions. Old philosophy is responsible for physics, arithmetic, all the sciences. I think that philosophers answer plenty of questions - let's go back to descartes.
"I exist!"... "wait.. well, do I? How would I know if I didn't?" rhuminates on the idea for a bit, and comes up with some pretty good disproofs "Well, those are ways to prove it. Nah, pretty sure I exist."
Sometimes the question is a little different then what you're thinking (I think?). Sometime's it's "What's important to me?" or "Does god exist?" sure the answers are subjective, but hell, it's a subjective universe.
2. Whose smug assurance?!? Certainly not a philosophers.... that seems like it's a personal bias. Have a bad experience a snobby philosopher in the past (puts on his frued outfit and drags out a couch) "tell me about your childhood.....
3. That's not a problem inherent to philosophy, that's YOUR inherent problem WITH philosophy. Hah, see what I did there? Seriously though, I can't see where you're really getting that, can you point me towards the source of it? If it's clearly visible to you it must be an empyric fact and empyric facts, are, well, empyric. Lead me to the light!
You didn't back up your assertion that philosophy is useless with any evidence so are you going to support it with something other then "I don't like it" (which, for the record, is a completely valid statement) or can we dismiss it as hyperbole?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It that way, it is as useless as it is to understand what happened a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, or how evolution works.
For the second, it predicts exactly the problem with antibiotic resistance we are right now learning that we'll have to come to grips with. Hell, nuclear fusion had no obvious practical applications until Oppenheimer et al. went to work on it.
Winning the keys that unlock how the universe works will always have practical applications -- we just need to think of them.
It that way, it is as useless as it is to understand what happened a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, or how evolution works.For the second, it predicts exactly the problem with antibiotic resistance we are right now learning that we'll have to come to grips with. Hell, nuclear fusion had no obvious practical applications until Oppenheimer et al. went to work on it.
Winning the keys that unlock how the universe works will always have practical applications -- we just need to think of them.
Incredibly well-put, kirth.
|
|
Its not philosophy's generation of questions that i don't like, its a combination of
1) Its inability to answer them
2) The smug self assurance that if something isn't proven philosophically it hasn't really been proven
3) The irrational contradiction between 1 and 2.
Habermas
1) Q: How do we deal with genetic engineering of humans?2) A: Two ways, allow for people to retain their authenticity. 1) Allow for negative eugenics to take place. 2) Do not allow for positive eugenics to take place. Rationale: One threatens a person's authenticity, while the other improves quality of living.
3) No irrationality detected.
That sounds like a problem in your own mind, then, and hence not our responsibility to disprove.
Prove to me you are all not just in my mind.
You can not.
Or, to put it another way. Prove to me you exist.
This is too easy. I was hoping you philosophy types would be better at these games.
.
It that way, it is as useless as it is to understand what happened a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, or how evolution works.For the second, it predicts exactly the problem with antibiotic resistance we are right now learning that we'll have to come to grips with. Hell, nuclear fusion had no obvious practical applications until Oppenheimer et al. went to work on it.
Winning the keys that unlock how the universe works will always have practical applications -- we just need to think of them.
In my defense, I said no direct practical applications. My whole point was there is plenty indirect ones, but theoritical work is not aimed at those, be it in science or in philosophy.
Also, a huge part of science have no practical applications.
Take natural selection : knowing how humans went form quadrupeds to bipeds will probably never see a practical application. Sometimes, we want to understand only for the sake of understanding.
The reason for the uselessness of the field of philosophy is that philosophers (as a class) cannot distinguish diamonds from trash. It is accordingly of critical importance that whenever a diamond is found in the trash with the philosophers, it be removed from them and handed to a jeweler. Since the Enlightenment, sensible people have gotten quite good at this activity.
When the diamond is cut and polished and placed in a beautiful setting, the philosophers, who still cannot distinguish trash from diamonds, will loudly say that the jewel proves that trash and diamonds are the same thing, and thus we should pay diamond prices for broken eggshell. Since they can't be dissuaded from this insanity, the sensible thing to do is put in earplugs, and occasionally see if their wallowing in filth accidentally reveals another diamond.
|
That sounds like a problem in your own mind, then, and hence not our responsibility to disprove.
Prove to me you are all not just in my mind.
You can not.Or, to put it another way. Prove to me you exist.
This is too easy. I was hoping you philosophy types would be better at these games.
.
You're thinking of me. You have a concept of me. Therefore, at least as that concept, I exist.
Also, a huge part of science have no practical applications.
Take natural selection : knowing how humans went form quadrupeds to bipeds will probably never see a practical application.
I took natural selection in the post to which you replied, and described a direct practical application. That natural selection also explains a quadruped - biped shift is icing on the cake. The thing with hard science is that it that every "purely theoretical" application has a ton of potential practical ones riding piggyback on it. All part and parcel of knowing how things really work.
|
|
BNW:
Philosophy has, in the past, been the basis by which we have developed intellectual concepts such as educational guidelines and the scientific method.
However, the main question is: what has philosophy done for us lately? That depends on what you consider philosophy. In much the same way no one really uses abacuses and slide rules anymore, the building blocks that philosophy gives us aren't in use anymore. However, if you check out how calculators and so on up to our iPhones work, you'll find virtual representations of those abacuses and slide rules.
So, it's not so much that philosophy is useless, as it is just mostly obsolete. It's a tool that makes the new tool that we use now. But since we can use the new tool to make more new tools, we forget about the old tool, and are none the worse for it.
For now, anyway.
What about the evolution theory in biology?
This has huge explanatory and predictive power in biology. It is biology's version of the grand unifying theory of physics. It has implications in everything from animal behavior (why do wolves form packs- the alphas are feeding their kids) to modeling how to deal with drug resistant bacteria. My animal behavior class was one long semester of "this is what whacky behavior we're observing this week, whats the evolutionary implications"
What about the theoretical physicist work on the Big Bang or Black holes, or dark matter or Calabi-Yau spaces?
At the very worst theoretical physicists are taking our ideas and getting them closer to reality. I like knowing about reality and consider that worth it. There's a very real possibility that in that pursuit they'll find something useful, like the next atomic power or quantum computer.
Philosophers take their and other peoples ideas and.. get them closer to working philosophically.
Philosophy is a theoretical discipline, with few direct applications (but as as been already argued, plenty of indirect results emerged from philosophical frames.)
The connections seemed rather weak.
Sometimes, as a result, it will be giving science a new problem scientists will be able to solve using the scientific method.
Example?
Sometimes (but rarely) it will be giving the logical basis upon which a technology is able to emerge (like formal logic, which was put forward by Frege and Russell in order to anwser ontological questions, gave the basis of computer sciences, which also needed a lot of physics to be able to become real.)
I don't think it would have taken the folks working on ENIAC all that long to figure out the or and xor gates.
Want other modern examples? Just read about the influence contemporary ontology had on physics. Multiple universes theory, now widely agreed upon by physicists? Originated in Leibniz, and given a logical frame by David K. Lewis in order to answer a question about counter factual claims.
Leibniz was also a mathematician. It seems a lot of the uses philosophers came up with came from the slash part of philosopher slash something.
Theory of time and space? Again, Newton's idea of absolute space-time, later rejected by Einstein, was an improvement on Descartes. Einstein got part of his mojo by reading Mach, who himself got his criticism of Newton from Leibniz's relative space theory.
How big of a part? Mach wanted direct observation of everything and didn't believe in atomic theory (or didn't think it had enough evidence). He would have tossed out the Rutherford gold leaf experiment if he's been in charge.
What I don't understand is your need to belittle theoretical thinking.
Because i have theoretical thinkers telling me that all forms of knowledge are insufficiently proved and demonstrated according to the precepts of almighty power of philosophy which.. can't do anything.
In other words if i get a time travel machine after I shoot hitler i'm going to stop off and beat Karl Popper with a stick.
The "I Exist" argument was pretty groundshaking when it happened.
Really? All this time and people were suddenly surprised to realize that they existed?
Og- Hey!... Guesse what... I exist!
Grolm: ... yeah, i know. You shot me in the but with an arrow last week.
Og: But you don't understand.. i KNOW i exist...
Growlm: Shut up and eat your mammoth.
Maybe you should read into it a bit more
Lets not rely on ad homs here shall we? I think you missed my point here.
and I hardly think that 3 year olds can grasp the concepts descartes was presenting.
No, but they have fully grasped his conclusion for at least 200,000 years. That Descartes was ground breaking to philosophers isn't a testament to Descartes, its indicative of the blind idiocy of philosophy and its inability to reach a conclussion that is literally staring them in the face.
1. Philosophy answers plenty of questions. Old philosophy is responsible for physics, arithmetic, all the sciences. I think that philosophers answer plenty of questions - let's go back to descartes.
Science diverged from philosophy when it figured out "huh. I sat in my chair and thought about this all day.. and i was really really wrong. I need to test this junk when i come up with it, just to make sure"
Greeks playing around with pneumatics ran into problems because they weren't allowed to prove the philosophers wrong with their conclusions.
"I exist!"... "wait.. well, do I? How would I know if I didn't?" rhuminates on the idea for a bit, and comes up with some pretty good disproofs "Well, those are ways to prove it. Nah, pretty sure I exist."
The very definition of overthinking it.
Sometimes the question is a little different then what you're thinking (I think?). Sometime's it's "What's important to me?" or "Does god exist?" sure the answers are subjective, but hell, it's a subjective universe.
Does god exist is an objective question.
2. Whose smug assurance?!? Certainly not a philosophers.... that seems like it's a personal bias. Have a bad experience a snobby philosopher in the past (puts on his frued outfit and drags out a couch) "tell me about your childhood.....
If you think I'm rough on philosophy you should see my views on psychology.... at least they don't give the philosophers prescription pads (good thing too, they're bad enough when they have to buy their own)
3. If it's clearly visible to you it must be an empyric fact and empyric facts, are, well, empyric. Lead me to the light!
The Gargoyle Society rejects every idea.
Your idea has not been verified by the the Gargoyle Society.Therefore your idea has not been proven.
Can you see the problem there? Its not a reasonable measure of an ideas truth if things we know are true get tossed out.
You didn't back up your assertion that philosophy is useless with any evidence so are you going to support it with something other then "I don't like it" (which, for the record, is a completely valid statement) or can we dismiss it as hyperbole?
I'm pretty sure this isn't a rule, because its rational and would actually lead to conclussion, but when one person is offering up a negative its reasonable for the other person to attempt to disprove it and the lack of disproof provides a reasonable assurance that the negative is true.
For example, If i say there's no rule in pathfinder for mixing two swords and a foot we can have the rules geeks scour the rules and if we don't find anything we conclude "huh.. there really is no rule." If we DO find a rule then we prove me wrong.
Cunning Mongoose has done a pretty good job of assembling the KIND of evidence that would be useful for an examination of my idea.
I don't like a lot of things, but a lot of things aren't falsely claiming to be a means to the truth. I don't like the game GO! but i don't hold any animosity towards it.
knowing how humans went form quadrupeds to bipeds will probably never see a practical application
Chiropractors.
In my case, knuckle glove designers.
Evolution is a FACT about the world, can someone show me a fact about the world that philosophy had discovered? and please no trivial one like i think therefore i exist.
Putting aside, again, the fact that scientific method is based on philosophical methodology...
Philosophy has helped us, as a society, decide that slavery is wrong, that women and blacks deserve the vote, and that as a global community we shouldn't tolerate basic human rights abuses. That's normative philosophy, i.e. ethics/morality.
And before you say those things are common sense, they're not, or they would have been changed millenia ago. Philosophy, if NOTHING ELSE, is a constant conversation reexamining ourselves as individuals and as a society and deciding what should be changed. Everything else is just a means to that end.
Philosophy has helped us, as a society, decide that slavery is wrong, that women and blacks deserve the vote, and that as a global community we shouldn't tolerate basic human rights abuses. That's normative philosophy, i.e. ethics/morality.
Philosophy also "helped" people to decide that slavery was right, blacks and women didn't deserve the vote, and that we should tolerate human rights abuses.
Its easier to manage for the champion when you're managing them both (the Don King rule)
Take natural selection : knowing how humans went form quadrupeds to bipeds will probably never see a practical application. I took natural selection in the post to which you replied, and described a direct practical application. That natural selection also explains a quadruped - biped shift is icing on the cake. The thing with hard science is that it that every "purely theoretical" application has a ton of potential practical ones riding piggyback on it. All part and parcel of knowing how things really work.
The theory have now, a hundred years later and indirectly (by the mean of cell biology), found a practical application. This application IS the icing on the cake, as the theory was not developped as a way to fight infections, but to explain the origin of biological diversity in non creationist terms. It's the perfect example of a theoritical work gaining afterward and by new discoveries a practical application.
Evolution thoery is a FACT about the world, can someone show me a fact about the world that philosophy had discovered? and please no trivial one like i think therefore i exist.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's a really sound theory explaining a lot of facts, like relativity is, but it's still a theoritical construct explaining facts, and not a fact in itself.
But yes, ok, what about logical facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begriffsschrift
I don't think it would have taken the folks working on ENIAC all that long to figure out the or and xor gates.
Maybe because they were standing on the shoulders of giants, like Frege and Russell?
Leibniz was also a mathematician. It seems a lot of the uses philosophers came up with came from the slash part of philosopher slash something.
Oh, right. He was a genius because he did math and not because he did philosophy. Being a genius and all, he did philosophy even if it was a dumb thing to do. And every genius who was also "slash part" philosopher was stupid to do philosophy and a genius for doing the other thing... Even when, like leibniz, they wrote a good part of their maths in order to understand philosophical problems... yeah.
If I ever saw bad faith.
Example?
of a new scientific problem framed by philosophy : Absolute vs Relative Space. Inertia vs Aristotelian motion. I recently heard a young neurobiologist from McGill crediting Kant for his hypothesis about the spatial perception of rats.
But, you know, keep trashing philosophy. I don't care. Serious scientists are working hand in hand with philosophers more and more everyday.
Theories in ontology are getting their way into physics.
Theories in mereology are getting their way in computer sciences and robotics.
Theories in logic are already an integral part of computer sciences.
Theories in semantics are informing a lot of what is going on in AI research.
Theories in epistemology are more and more integrated in biology.
Theories in philosophy of mind are central to cognitive sciences.
Sure, being an outsider and not working in the field, you may not see this and think what you want. But you are wrong. Research is going on in philosophy, and there is many places where this research is done hand in hand whith scientists who are also interrested in fundamental research.
That is a fact, not a theory.
It's the perfect example of a theoritical work gaining afterward and by new discoveries a practical application.
Like i said, i have no problem with theoretical knowledge about reality. I have a problem with philosophy valuing its theoretical knowledge about itself.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's a really sound theory explaining a lot of facts, like relativity is, but it's still a theoritical construct explaining facts, and not a fact in itself.
There is functionally no difference between the definition of a fact and the definition of scientific theory. Evolution is both.
But yes, ok, what about logical facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begriffsschrift
Does this mean anything outside of philosophy or does it just make philosophy work better?
Maybe because they were standing on the shoulder of giants, like Frege and Russell?
Because the rules can fit on piece of paper.
Even when, like leibniz, they wrote a good part of their maths in order to understand philosophical problems... yeah.
So let me get this strait. The philosopher, a person you consider a genius, had an idea and could not make it work in philosophy, so he had to switch and use math instead.
I think that helps my point more than yours.
If I ever saw bad faith.
You're really the only one providing a rational argument for your point, don't blow it.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Example?
Absolute vs Relative Space.
The philosophers contribution was?
Inertia vs Aristotelian motion.
I recently heard a young neurobiologist from McGill crediting Kant for his hypothesis about the spatial perception of rats.
Ah Kant. Assuming your conclusions is idiocy. Assuming things that lead inevitably to your conclusion is Philosophy.
Theories in ontology are getting their way into physics.
Theories in mereology are getting their way in computer sciences and robotics.
Theories in logic are already an integral part of computer sciences.
Theories in semantics are informing a lot of what is going on in AI research.
Theories in epistemology are more and more integrated in biology.
Theories in philosophy of mind are central to cognitive sciences.
Specific examples?
Philosophy has helped us, as a society, decide that slavery is wrong, that women and blacks deserve the vote, and that as a global community we shouldn't tolerate basic human rights abuses. That's normative philosophy, i.e. ethics/morality.Philosophy also "helped" people to decide that slavery was right, blacks and women didn't deserve the vote, and that we should tolerate human rights abuses.
Its easier to manage for the champion when you're managing them both (the Don King rule)
The challenge was not to prove that philosophy is always right, just that it has bearing on the world, correct? Let's not move goalposts.
For every genuine scientific discovery there has been, or will be, a way to pervert it to harm mankind as individuals or as a whole. That doesn't mean that science is wrong, that it doesn't exist, or that it irrelevant. You're missing the point, philosophy is the argument itself, not the conclusion, it's the process.
I could also say that "science" believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth or that Pluto was a planet(etc etc.). Philosophy, like science, is a continual process of reexamination. It's true that science has largely subsumed philosophical pursuits like biology or geology or chemistry. However there is no scientific answer to whether and when it is wrong to kill another human being, or a thousand other questions we can't otherwise answer.
Why did the US decide to aid Libyan rebels this year overthrow the Gadaffi regime? I would answer because Gadaffi's regime was morally wrong and sometimes it's right for us to stop wrong things from happening. Was it right for Obama to go in without congressional consent? These are philosophical issues. The continual debate we have in this country and around the world about such things is what you might call "philosophizing", as we use the rational argument as a framework to make such decisions.
So I would like to reiterate that you don't see philosophy as useful because you see it as something external, but you do it all day every day, your philosophy and ideology(ies) lie at the core of your self and inform everything you do. It is ubiquitous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Descartes and leibniz did not do good mathematic because they philosophy but against it.
No. You are wrong. Go read about them, or better yet, read them.
- Ontology is the exact opossite of physics. Every ontological argument is by definition a falacy, a petitio principii
No, you are wrong. Go read about ontology. In fact, one of the first thing you learn when actually doing serious ontology is not to beg the question. Maybe this book would be a good start : http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introductions-Philosophy-ebo ok/dp/B000OI101G/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319499148&sr=1 -5
Or this article : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/
- good logic is a part of pure mathematics, when only philosopher do logic it remains statics from 2000 years.
False again. Frege and Rusell were philosophers with an interrest in mathematic, not mathematicians with an interrest in philosophy. They devised formal logic as an awnser to british hegelians' metaphysical problems. Russell and Withehead were bot metaphysicians (their main interrest was in ontology.)
Yeah you are right shame on me. But that is the way science work making theories that explain fact, philosophy do not do that
Yes it does. It's been its main task for about 2500 years. Between 1850 and 1950 it was though science was now "free" of philosophy, mainly because of positivism and later logical positivism, but it has been proved wrong as more and more, scientists are coming back toward the philosophical tradition in order to frame and test the consistency of their theories.
Another problem is that, when thinking about philosophy, a lot of people think about social /political philosophy or spiritual philosophy and ignore that a HUGE part of philosophical research is in what we call "analytical philosophy" which has always been close to science.
The challenge was not to prove that philosophy is always right, just that it has bearing on the world, correct? Let's not move goalposts.
The goalposts are firmly planted, thank you.
The challenge was, as the song says, "what is it good for"
Your contention was that it was good for getting rid of slavery. My counter point that it was just as good for keeping slavery as it was for getting rid of it. If you claim the roach catapult is good at getting rid of roaches because it catapults 20 roaches out but it also lets 20 roaches in you have a serious problem.
For every genuine scientific discovery there has been, or will be, a way to pervert it to harm mankind as individuals or as a whole. That doesn't mean that science is wrong, that it doesn't exist, or that it irrelevant.
Science is about is, not ought. If science finds a new law or trick that makes something go boom then its done its job.
You're missing the point, philosophy is the argument itself, not the conclusion, it's the process.
That neither makes every argument philosophy nor does it allow philosophy credit for being on the right side.
However there is no scientific answer to whether and when it is wrong to kill another human being, or a thousand other questions we can't otherwise answer.
I agree that science cannot answer ought questions (but its reaaaaly good at figuring out what to do once you give it direction)
However my point is that philosophy does not answer them either. You can pick a philosophy and get a question but nothing resembling an objective answer.
The continual debate we have in this country and around the world about such things is what you might call "philosophizing", as we use the rational argument as a framework to make such decisions.
Its arguing. I can call a rabit a sheep, doesn't mean i can make a sweater out of it.
This is like a framer taking credit for a davinci.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like i said, i have no problem with theoretical knowledge about reality. I have a problem with philosophy valuing its theoretical knowledge about itself.
Yeah, I have the same problem. But then, philosophy is part of reality, so...
There is functionally no difference between the definition of a fact and the definition of scientific theory. Evolution is both.
No. A fact can't be refined, revised or more simply be true or false. It can only be or not, and is subject to empirical experience. It's what makes a theory true of false: what we call the verificator of a theory.
Fact : Fossils exists.
Theory explaining the fact: evolution.
Evolution theory changed a lot between Lamark, Darwin and modern genetics - would you say it was always a fact? In what sense? Which fact? A great big fact called evolution? It is not possible to observe or experience this.
That is why the Big Bang is also a theory. You may observe the background mircrowave radiation, that is the fact that verificate the theory.
But yes, ok, what about logical facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BegriffsschriftDoes this mean anything outside of philosophy or does it just make philosophy work better?
Because the rules can fit on piece of paper.
Funny - They are the rules you are talking about, and no, they did not fit into one piece of paper at first, it came with refinement in the theory and notation. What you may now put on a page took a lenghty book to establish and proove.
So let me get this strait. The philosopher, a person you consider a genius, had an idea and could not make it work in philosophy, so he had to switch and use math instead.
I think that helps my point more than yours.
Philosophy may use mathematics as a tool. Physics does it all the time, do you mean physics is worthless for doing so?
The philosophers contribution was?
To the space problem? : showing there is two way to logically describe the same phenomenon. Framing the problem. Science did the testing. Newton's test (the bucket) was later proved flawed by Einstein who went back to the alternative and devised the equations to go with it. Philosophy is good at giving science a set of logically plausible hypothesis, scientist are good at giving back the good one to philosophy, opening new fields for new hypothesis, and etc. See it as a circular process between both disciplines.
Ah Kant. Assuming your conclusions is idiocy. Assuming things that lead inevitably to your conclusion is Philosophy.
I don't follow you.
Specific examples?
Mereology, is helping reworking the way a computer can "understand" spatial relations - it has application in recognition systems, for example. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/.
Uh...
You can make rabbit fur sweaters. They're quite nice, in fact.
We will not make any advance with Ad hominens. all your refutation seem false to mee (specially the first and the last). I am a scientific, and I never have to do philosphy to do good science, neither have to come back to philosophical traditions.
Can you give an example of a non trivial fact that philosophy have explain?but it seems to me that we woul not make any advance in this way, Can we agree that we disagree? i woul try to read that book of yours, and if you have time can you look
It was not ad hominem. You just are wrong. I did not attack you personally.
If someones say to you something blatantly false about your field, you are legitimised to say they are wrong. It's not ad hominem.
You are a scientific, and you never have to do philosophy? Possible, sure. Do you do fundamental research? As I said plenty of time, that is where the interaction is.
A non trivial fact philosophy can explain? What do you mean by non-trivial? Things falling down seems trivial, and you need relativity to explain that. What is so important about non-trivial?
But, ok - how about the infinite regression you get when trying to explain time with tensed propositions as a proof for a static view of time? What about counterfactuals propositions (and logical modality) requiring multiple universes if you want to make sense of those propositions and are required to stick to a verificationnal accout of science?
I mean, there is plenty of non trivials facts, but being non trivials, you will need to read about them, because, as in science, you can't explain them in a few lines...
I'll take a look at your book. (Just bought it for my Kindle.)
Edit: Just read the introduction. Funny. And I agree with the author on a lot of things. But, really, he himself present his book as a caricature. It's like saying Einstein relativity is to be rejected because he was a believer, and rejected quantum theory because of that. Ignoring everything that is sound of a theory because of one irrational belief of his author is easy, and funny, but it is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What? philosophy do not give logically plausible hipotesis, science do. Newton argument of absolute space was almost a necesity for him, becouse his mathematical theory almost needed it.
Hum... that must be why is book is titled "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". But, not, the term philosophy was a mistake. Newton never read philosophy, and did not try to proove Aristotle notion of location false...
Because, you know, being a scientific genius, he built his hypothesis from nothing, and surely not from a philosophical debate about the nature of space... Surely it's impossible for philosophy to gives hypothesis! Because that is what science do!
Begging the question again, you see.
Ok you are right, it was another type of falacy, you are assuming that i had not read about descartes and leibniz because i din not make the same conclusion than you did, and that is not true.
My apologies, then. But They certainly did not do maths against philosophy. Leibniz devised infinitesimal calculus in order to awnser the ontological question about monad's perceptions, and threw the base of modal logic in order to explain his Theodicy. Descartes's philosophical method is based upon his work in algebra.
Not actively, but the anwer to the fundamental problems ( i mean fundational problems) lie in physic itself, If you define philosophy as to think in the fundamental problems you just win from the beginin, but historicaly Philosophy had not been a good source of anwers.
It has been a good source of problems, questions and hypothesis. And no, the anwsers neither lie in physic itself, nor in philosophy, but in theoritical physic or philosophy of physics, a field partaking to both disciplines and owned by none. Academia's divisions are far from reality, I guess.
Well, aristotle said that a rock fall becouse that is what is suposed to happen ( with a lot more of words of course). that of course is a trivial explanation.
No, he did not say that. He said a rock was falling because of an intrinsic property, and assigned such properties to every being (essence) by mean of a definition. It was a clumsy explanation, granted, because of the mesoscopic scale, but not trivial and not tautological like you seems to think.
This process is today used in modern physics for the fundemental forces which are defined only by an intrinsic property and an equation assigning this property to the force.Seems you can't get to the "bottom" of reality without using this logical mean of stopping infinite regress.
My believe is that Philosophy (specially since kant) is a very complex way to not say anything.
The complex lenguage of kant,hegel, heidegger hide the fact that his thougts are empty
Granted. In Kant, you may find a lot of good stuff, but German Idealism and 20th century existentialism are not the whole of philosophy. I have no taste for Hegel or Heideigger (or Sartre) myself. I am not a very spiritual person, I guess, but I prefer "Hard" philosophy.
You'll find that people reading Hegel and Heideigger are mostly working in philosophy of humanities (ethics, sociology, religion, culture, history) and not in philosophy of sciences like myself.
He built his thoery from galilei, galilei make his conclusion from observational fact, quite the oposite of metaphisics/ontology.Are you saying that making question is to do philosophy?
I'm saying a lot of hypothesis arises from ontological work, yes.
Maybe you should read about ontology. Seriously, ontology is empirical and realist (at least, a good portion of ontology is) and aims at giving a rational explanation to observed phenomenon on a fundamental level.
Maybe you are thinking about Aquinas, Hegel and Sartre while I'm thinking about Leibniz, Russell, David Lewis and David Armstrong?
Hell is the other people in the Off-Topic Discussion forums.