| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This topic is itself a statement in favour of philosophy. Namely, it would help people who are interested in science, or even scientists themselves not to grossly misrepresent its logical foundations.
For instance, the claim that "science is solely based on observation" and that "science is basically an extension of common sense" could not be farther from the truth.
Science is a theoretical activity concerning reality. It implies a philosophical stance (namely, realism), whether the scientist likes philosophy or not, or he recognizes it or not. Many scientists and scientific-minded folks claim to follow or believe in sets of principles which are in fact based on the philosophy of positivism which is antithetical to the very scientific activity it tried to defend.
The failure to understand scientific activity in philosophical grounds led many scientists to make absurd assertions concerning their very job. This was most notable during the development of quantum mechanics.
Science as an area of knowledge demands a set of presuppositions and is guided by some logical imperatives which can only be properly understood by philosophical inquiry.
This topic is itself a statement in favour of philosophy. Namely, it would help people who are interested in science, or even scientists themselves not to grossly misrepresent its logical foundations.
For instance, the claim that "science is solely based on observation" and that "science is basically an extension of common sense" could not be farther from the truth.
Science is a theoretical activity concerning reality. It implies a philosophical stance (namely, realism), whether the scientist likes philosophy or not, or he recognizes it or not. Many scientists and scientific-minded folks claim to follow or believe in sets of principles which are in fact based on the philosophy of positivism which is antithetical to the very scientific activity it tried to defend.
The failure to understand scientific activity in philosophical grounds led many scientists to make absurd assertions concerning their very job. This was most notable during the development of quantum mechanics.
Science as an area of knowledge demands a set of presuppositions and is guided by some logical imperatives which can only be properly understood by philosophical inquiry.
So good to hear that from a Post-Doc student in chemistry!
So good to hear that from a Post-Doc student in chemistry!
Oh, I have to correct that, I have recently become an Associate Professor here in Rio! Hope I can keep enough time to continue posting and reading =)
Oh, I have to correct that, I have recently become an Associate Professor here in Rio! Hope I can keep enough time to continue posting and reading =)
So good to hear that from a Post-Doc student in chemistry!
Congratulations! Hope you'll get tenured sooner than later!
Let me correct that for you
Its not a correction, its a churlish aspersion on my honesty.
What advantage, pray tell, was i attempting to gain by asking
Why do Domestic dogs have floppy ears?
You're demonstrating the very pedantic behavior you're objecting to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me correct that for youIts not a correction, its a churlish aspersion on my honesty.
Yep, pretty much.
What advantage, pray tell, was i attempting to gain by askingWhy do Domestic dogs have floppy ears?
I don't have a clue. I guess it's another cryptic thing that is somehow supposed to make sense and that you'll get to interpret any convenient way you want.
You're demonstrating the very pedantic behavior you're objecting to.
Yep. I guess someone who's an history negationist about the history of science and who twist logic his way, asking others to stick to its rules but finding convenient ways to get around the same rules he commits others to when proved false does not get my respect.
You want to play ball, play by the rules. If you cheat, accept we won't play with you.
For instance, the claim that "science is solely based on observation" and that "science is basically an extension of common sense" could not be farther from the truth.
Well, without inserting words into someone elses mouth has anyone said that?
Science is a theoretical activity concerning reality.
In science the theory is bound on both sides by fact. Your facts need to be developed off of previous observations, you develop an idea, and you test that idea to be sure that you're right.
It implies a philosophical stance (namely, realism), whether the scientist likes philosophy or not, or he recognizes it or not.
This would be the part of philosophy they refer to as common sense.
Does one need formal philosophy to have the idea that reality is well... real? Or is it simply a lack of philosophy that would give you this conclusion.
Philosophy is the only reason to ask the question, so i don't see the need to credit it with a partial answer.
Many scientists and scientific-minded folks claim to follow or believe in sets of principles which are in fact based on the philosophy of positivism which is antithetical to the very scientific activity it tried to defend.
Is positivism the assumption or the conclusion?
As far as "is" questions go (as opposed to ought, moral questions) what is the value of philosophy?
The failure to understand scientific activity in philosophical grounds led many scientists to make absurd assertions concerning their very job. This was most notable during the development of quantum mechanics.
Case in point? I know Schrodinger didn't believe the cat dead and alive.
Science as an area of knowledge demands a set of presuppositions and is guided by some logical imperatives which can only be properly understood by philosophical inquiry.
I exist
The world exists.My senses give me a more or less accurate picture of reality
I think everything else can be concluded from there.
You want to play ball, play by the rules. If you cheat, accept we won't play with you.
Oh, who are you kidding? You two have been arguing non-stop since at least Monday.
I don't think you two should stop until you figure out something big, like: where does my lap go when I stand up?
You want to play ball, play by the rules. If you cheat, accept we won't play with you.
Oh, who are you kidding? You two have been arguing non-stop since at least Monday.
I don't think you two should stop until you figure out something big, like: where does my lap go when I stand up?
Hey there! What do you want, I'm somehow naive and give (too much) chances to the other player. "Nah, he's not cheating, it's just a mistake!"
I'm slow like that.
Let me correct that for youIts not a correction, its a churlish aspersion on my honesty.
Yep, pretty much.
What advantage, pray tell, was i attempting to gain by askingWhy do Domestic dogs have floppy ears?
I don't have a clue. I guess it's another cryptic thing that is somehow supposed to make sense and that you'll get to interpret any convenient way you want.
You're demonstrating the very pedantic behavior you're objecting to.Yep. I guess someone who's an history negationist about the history of science and who twist logic his way, asking others to stick to its rules but finding convenient ways to get around the same rules he commits others to when proved false does not get my respect.
You want to play ball, play by the rules. If you cheat, accept we won't play with you.
That is so patently true that I have no choice but to pipe in with a +1 for you, good sir.
Rhetoric has rules, and no amount of inanity can overcome them.
Well, without inserting words into someone elses mouth has anyone said that?
Well not these very words, no. But you did say that empirism and materialism are the two foundations of science, and one other poster did say that most of science is common sense. Though empirical data is of great importance in science, its success goes well beyond what empirism and common sense can yield.
In science the theory is bound on both sides by fact. Your facts need to be developed off of previous observations, you develop an idea, and you test that idea to be sure that you're right.
I don't understand what you mean when you say facts are developed off of ptevious observations.
This would be the part of philosophy they refer to as common sense.Does one need formal philosophy to have the idea that reality is well... real? Or is it simply a lack of philosophy that would give you this conclusion.
Philosophy is the only reason to ask the question, so i don't see the need to credit it with a partial answer.
In the same way common sense serves poorly as a tool for scientific discoveries, it is not a great criterium for deciding between different manners of thought. Notice that common sense says that reality exists at the same time it says that objects do not move when there are no forces acting on them. Philosophy gave us the means by which we try to investigate this reality we assume to exist. Why do you think the scientific revolution took so long to happen if we had realism since forever?
Is positivism the assumption or the conclusion?
As far as "is" questions go (as opposed to ought, moral questions) what is the value of philosophy?
It is neither. If we are talking about science, that is.
It changes society profoundly, for good or evil, by creating new avenues of thought and burying old ones. Science is only one of the many ways philosophy changed the world.
Case in point? I know Schrodinger didn't believe the cat dead and alive.
I am talking about stuff like Mach's criticism of Boltzmann's work, and Heisenberg's stance on the role of the observer.
I exist
The world exists.
My senses give me a more or less accurate picture of reality
I think everything else can...
a really small part of scientific knowledge could actually be obtained by merely using these principles.
I am talking about stuff like Mach's criticism of Boltzmann's work, and Heisenberg's stance on the role of the observer.
Don't bother. I already explained him that, and gave links to papers on the subject. He just blatantly ignored them.
Yep. I guess someone who's an history negationist about the history of science
I don't buy your conclusions from the material you presented and i could access. That's not being a negationist. Look at your own argument. The possibility doesn't occur to you that someone isn't following that stream of consciousness?
The evil plan with the floppy ears bit was to show you how outright impossible it is to make an informative statement while adhering to the rules of philosophy and pointing out every "assumption" made in order to respond to the question.
In other words that philosophy is a pain in the rear without any real benefit.
The answer would have to go something like
According to the hypothesis that you were not created last Tuesday with all your memories in tact, the beings defined loosely as domesticated dogs have appear to have a greater tendency for floppyness (insert long definition of floppiness here), assuming that you are not a brain in a vat being manipulated by field mice, and assuming that the things we refer to as eyes exist, and assuming the light comming off of the two subspecies isn't being manipulated , and assuming that the world wasn't created 10,000 years ago by god and assuming that traits can be inhereted and assuming evolution by differential reproduction is true than wolves were chosen by an intelligent agent (probably humans) for a lack of aggresiveness and that lack of aggressiveness coresponds with a more puppyish behavior which coresponds with a more puppyish physiology overall. Assuming that the dog has a mind and that the dog has a brain and the brain can be affected by physiology then humans (assuming choice exists) were choosing floppy ears as a linked trait along with the required submissive behavior.
I hadn't planned on being so pedantic as to point out the generalization in my statement as one of the issues, but you never objected to it. The statement doesn't read as "all domestic dogs have floppy ears" just because dog is pluralized.
I realize there are philosophers who don't hold to the views I'm ascribing to them. But its not as though i can say anything is the official position of philosophy (you don't have any sort of organizational structure) or the pope of philosophy says... (what would they use instead of the big had, big elbow patches?) or X% of philosophers says. I'm repeating a very commonly seen opinion of philosophers and its one that you seem to share.
I don't buy your conclusions from the material you presented and i could access. That's not being a negationist. Look at your own argument. The possibility doesn't occur to you that someone isn't following that stream of consciousness?
The alternate stream of consciousness is called delusion in front of historic facts.
According to the hypothesis that you were not created last Tuesday with all your memories in tact, the beings defined loosely as domesticated dogs have appear to have a greater tendency for floppyness (insert long definition of floppiness here), assuming that you are not a brain in a vat being manipulated by field mice, and assuming that the things we refer to as eyes exist, and assuming the light comming off of the two subspecies isn't being manipulated , and assuming that the world wasn't created 10,000 years ago by god and assuming that traits can be inhereted and assuming evolution by differential reproduction is true than wolves were chosen by an intelligent agent (probably humans) for a lack of aggresiveness and that lack of aggressiveness coresponds with a more puppyish behavior which coresponds with a more puppyish physiology overall. Assuming that the dog has a mind and that the dog has a brain and the brain can be affected by physiology then humans (assuming choice exists) were choosing floppy ears as a linked trait along with the required submissive behavior.
If you think THAT is philosophy, thank god you don't work in the field. Thats is to philosophy what alchemy is to chemistry.
Well not these very words, no. But you did say that empirism and materialism are the two foundations of science
Right, But i think they work better as conclusions based on observation rather than as philosophical assumptions.
Empiricism drops out of any other method we've come up with not working and getting repeatedly getting contradictory answers we know to be false.
Materialism likewise comes from us not seeing anything else. We're not dogmatically materialists, we're pragmatically materialists. There could theoretically be something else there, but since we haven't seen anything else there's really no point in assuming anything else without a good reason
and one other poster did say that most of science is common sense.
I think he said 90% of philosophy was malarky and the good 10% was common sense.
Though empirical data is of great importance in science, its success goes well beyond what empiricism and common sense can yield.
I agree. The universe is too weird for common sense alone.
I don't understand what you mean when you say facts are developed off of previous observations.
You don't test random hypotheses. Something has to give you an idea that the hypothesis is true. Look at the discovery of LSD. The guy who discovered it was pretty sure that it was the chemical he was working with that was causing his hallucinations and not a bad lunch, tiredness, brain tumor etc. He had to test it to be sure though, so he delibrately dosed himself with it and he was right. (unfortunately the poor guy was less correct about the right dose...)
In the same way common sense serves poorly as a tool for scientific discoveries, it is not a great criterium for deciding between different manners of thought. Notice that common sense says that reality exists at the same time it says that objects do not move when there are no forces acting on them. Philosophy gave us the means by which we try to investigate this reality we assume to exist.
Philosophy doesn't help decide between different matters of thought either. Philosophy has been working on the existence of God for how long now?
Why do you think the scientific revolution took so long to happen if we had realism since forever?
Well, we've never not had realism. People have always known that stuff is here. What we haven't had is sola realism or only realism: the idea that this stuff is ALL we've got.
As to why it took so long a few things
I think it took so long because humans (and other critters) are hard wired to see patterns. A false positive costs you less than a false negative. If you develop a belief that a rustling bush always means a saber toothed tiger you'll live longer than both the person who beleives that it NEVER means a saber toothed tiger as well as the person who only thinks its a saber toothed tiger sometimes.
Experimental science is expensive. For the vast majority of human history we've been largely subsistance. We haven't had the ability to produce large numbers of "spare" people who are sitting around learning for their entire lives.
Furthermore the people we did have learning didn't talk to each other much. I don't think its a coincidence that the scientific revolution and the printing press* happened together. Ideas take a lot of people to form well. What one person thinks sparks something else in another person which someone else pass it on... people could stand on the shoulders of giants because the giants were shouting HERE I AM! in the light rather than hiding behind secrecy and ritual in the dark.
It is neither. If we are talking about science, that is.
It changes society profoundly, for good or evil, by creating new avenues of thought and burying old ones. Science is only one of the many ways philosophy changed the world.
I don't think that science is a philosophy. Philosophy is primarily speculative, science is primarily investigative.
I am talking about stuff like Mach's criticism of Boltzmann's work
Well, should people have listened to Mach? Mach was arguing for accepting the soundness only of things that were seen directly. If we'd listened to him we'd never have gotten the atomic model because the gold leaf experiment relies on the indirect observation of particles on a screen.
Mach seems like an overworried mother. She ALWAYS tells the kids no and is then "right" when something goes wrong.
and Heisenberg's stance on the role of the observer.
Was this Mach again?
a really small part of scientific knowledge could actually be obtained by merely using these principles.
What couldn't you build just using those as a foundation?
The alternative stream of consciousness is called delusion in front of historic facts.
Right, its completely irrational to think that someone looking at Galileos motions of the planets (the reason newton developed calculus) and trying to add over time could use those to come up with calculus.
http://www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/periodictable/html/li.html
The Royal Society of London elected Leibniz a fellow in 1673. He studied mathematics and physics under Huygens, and read works by Pascal, Fabri, Gregory, Saint-Vincent, Descartes and Sluze. He began to study the geometry of infinitesimals. It was during this period in Paris that Leibniz developed the basic features of his version of the calculus. In 1673, he was still struggling to develop a good notation for his calculus and his first calculations were clumsy. In 1675, he wrote a manuscript using the integral notation for the first time. In the same manuscript the product rule for differentiation is given. By 1676 Leibniz had discovered the familiar power rule for both integral and fractional exponents.
So the philosophy got him nowhere and he had to turn to math. The math got him to calculus. He was doing the philosophy to explain something in physics, so it goes
Physics of elastic collisions (including Willis' own proto calculus------> attempts at philosophy resulting in spiritual mumbo jumbo ----> philosophy goes bunk -----> math----> calculus.
If you think THAT is philosophy, thank god you don't work in the field. Thats is to philosophy what alchemy is to chemistry.
Here's a bat, you take a whack at it.
And don't dis alchemy, it inspired newton and more science than philosophy :k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies
NOT ON THE SNOUT NOT ON THE SNOUT
The alternative stream of consciousness is called delusion in front of historic facts.Right, its completely irrational to think that someone looking at Galileos motions of the planets (the reason newton developed calculus) and trying to add over time could use those to come up with calculus.
** spoiler omitted **
So the philosophy got him nowhere and he had to turn to math. The math got him to calculus. He was doing the philosophy to explain something in physics, so it goes
Physics of elastic collisions------> attempts at philosophy resulting in spiritual mumbo jumbo ----> philosophy goes bunk -----> math----> calculus.
That. And Julius Caesar was really a ballet dancer.
That. And Julius Caesar was really a ballet dancer.
Ok, is there something wrong with my source or do you have a problem with how i'm reading it?
That. And Julius Caesar was really a ballet dancer.Ok, is there something wrong with my source or do you have a problem with how i'm reading it?
You mean, beside the fact the guy was a philosopher and that you are reading history through lenses that obscure every contribution philosophy made to science, blatantly ignoring a whole part of human though by writing it down as "mumbo jumbo".
Oh, no, no problem! No problem at all!
As I said, Ballet Dancer!
You mean, beside the fact the guy was a philosopher
He was a philosopher a mathematician and a professional alchemist. Without a reliable chain of thought from any of these professions to the conclusion he's being credited for its hard to justify crediting any one of his professions with his conclussion.
and that you are reading history through lenses that obscure every contribution philosophy made to science
ad hom.
blatantly ignoring a whole part of human though by writing it down as "mumbo jumbo".
Not the whole part about human thought just the part about spirits
As I said, Ballet Dancer!
Well if you need a whole lot of guys known for being loose in the loafers all acting the same way at the same time in tight leather outfits...
Well if you need a whole lot of guys known for being loose in the loafers all acting the same way at the same time in tight leather outfits...
Sure, Julius is soo cooler this way, man. Getting stabbed when dancing, like in the finale of Dark Swan! Wow! The Angst!
It's so cool, I'll now say it's true, and deny every freaking historical proof to the contrary! Military leader? What, he wrote that himself in his book about the Gallic wars?
Bullshit! Not important! It was just a youth mistake before he good to the serious buiseness of ballet dancing!
His first job, which he held only briefly, was as secretary to a society of alchemists at Nuremberg. At the time, he was keenly interested in alchemy, and he believed that the newly discovered phosphorus might hold the key to the philosophers’ stone. In later life, he came to believe that alchemy was mere superstition, and he seems to have destroyed most of his papers relating to alchemy.
-http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/resources/biographies/leibniz/le ibniz.html
http://www.jstor.org/pss/40693740
This important, well-researched collection of essays will change many readers' perceptions of Leibniz and of the seventeenth century. Dealing with such subjects as Leibniz's occult sources, his interest in mysticism, Kabbalah, and Chinese philosophy, and his attitude towards enthusiasm, the authors provide new insights into Leibniz's thought and the cultural context in which he lived.-http://books.google.com/books/about/Leibniz_mysticism_and_religion.h tml?id=U9dOmVt81UAC
Sorry, alchemist. I think the time frame fits for some of his earlier ideas, but he did give it up after a while.
Hell is this thread.
Also:
Not true.
Stuff about Julius Caesar and ballet.
Preposterour! Come on man, Wikipedia! There is a conspiracy behind this! Everybody knows historians are wrong on this one! Nonsense!
You can't show there is not another stream of though you should follow showing clearly Julius was a Ballet Dancer! (THE ballet dancer!)
In order to proove he was not one, and was a general, you would need to establish a direct link between his killing people and his being a general. Good luck! He was just a ballet dancer who enjoyed killing people. No link there, you see!
And next you'll say philosophy had an influence on science, I guess?
Funny, I just stumbled upon this while doing some reading for my thesis.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2782
I don't know what this article, first published in a respected journal is doing on a religious site, but hey - there you have another fiction about a famous philosopher (Bergson) leading a nobel prize scientist (Prigogine) towards new questions and new discoveries.
Surely, this is a conspiracy!
Religion uses philosophy because religion has been firmly shooed out of science.
*eyes badger spray*
It seems evident from these passages defending the virtue of scientific investigation and suggesting a distrust of logical argumentation that Prigogine and Stengers prefer that philosophers concern themselves with interpreting the results of scientific inquiry instead of devising arguments independent of scientific research, or prescribing limits on the significance of the future work of scientists. Their remarks suggest that philosophy should not lead science -- it should only follow.
Exactly HOW is that Bergson Leading Prigogine?
Yeah you. Gimme the keys, get in the back, and no more backseat driving grandma!
*blasts highway to hell*
I do like the way the article expressed the difference between science and philosophy. Philosophy is a monolouge to nature, science is a conversation with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hell is not this video.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ad hom.
Can we please stop dropping rhetorical phrases like they are somehow "rules" for debate? Simply calling something an ad hominem doesn't nullify it as an argument. Likewise for reductio absurdium and many other phrases that people seem to use to turn discussion into children's games.
When CM says:
and that you are reading history through lenses that obscure every contribution philosophy made to science
...it is directly pertinent to the conversation. You cannot magically divorce your earlier comments from a point you just made. We're in the same conversation! He's not saying you're wrong because you're a Yankees fan, he's saying you're wrong because of the whole freaking thread topic. And I agree.
You might as well shout "not-it!" or "jinx" — with the possible exception of the strawman argument, but crying foul on that is so overplayed I feel it weakens any case now.
BNW an ad hominem argument is precisely what you have used for this entire thread! You dislike "philosophers" somehow, despite the fact that as a field of study it includes many directly opposing opinions, some of which closely mirror your own. You're attacking the uselessness of philosophy based on some purported philosophers who irritate you. THAT'S AN AD HOMINEM.
and that you are reading history through lenses that obscure every contribution philosophy made to science
-This being true relies on a quality of the person (me) making the argument being flawed. Rather than addressing anything that I said he's casting my statements as invalid because I'm the one who said them.
This precludes the possibility of coming the conclusion that philosophy doesn't help science based on the evidence. He presumes not only that his point is correct, but that his point is so obvious that any disagreement with it can only be dishonest or biased.
I have several problems with his arguments and his sources. There seems to be a fair amount of... interpretation going on between what the sources say and how CunningMongoose interprets them. Not automatically agreeing with the other persons interpretation is not the same as dismissing the sources.
You're attacking the uselessness of philosophy based on some purported philosophers who irritate you. THAT'S AN AD HOMINEM.
Its more of a fallacy of composition. I'm willing to admit that there are individual philosophers who do not do what I'm saying. I'm not sure why they haven't moved on to a different field but i know they exist.
I think the problem is that there isn't (or at least i can't find) a way to express... i think "True stereotype" would be the closest i could come to the idea. A trend? Something that is true for the population to a certain extent (especially when compared with an outside or contrasted group) but may not apply to every single individual within it.
When i speak of a group and don't use "all" this stereotype is what i think of the group,and most people use language the same way without even thinking about it. "Domesticated dogs have floppy ears" and "men are taller than women" for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and that you are reading history through lenses that obscure every contribution philosophy made to science
-This being true relies on a quality of the person (me) making the argument being flawed. Rather than addressing anything that I said he's casting my statements as invalid because I'm the one who said them.
No.
He is saying you have reached your flawed conclusions through a method that is wrong.
you read history through lenses that obscure every contribution philosophy made to science
your conclusions about philosophy's contribution to science are invalid.
There is no personal attack.
e is saying you have reached your flawed conclusions through a method that is wrong.
IF you read history through lenses that obscure every contribution philosophy made to science
THEN your conclusions about philosophy's contribution to science are invalid.
There is no personal attack.
-He's not really using an If there.
The problem is that he's using the idea that i am reading history through a faulty lens in lieu of answering my points about history which he uses to show that I have a faulty lens.
This thread is like have an ironic anvil dropped repeatedly upon my skull.
It's like they say. You can lead BigNorseWolf to data, but you can't make him think.
It's like they say. You can lead BigNorseWolf to data, but you can't make him think.
Heh.
So when I'm lead to data that is said to support the idea of philosophy leading science, but it actually says philosophy SHOULDN"T lead science, what should I conclude?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's like they say. You can lead BigNorseWolf to data, but you can't make him think.Heh.
So when I'm lead to data that is said to support the idea of philosophy leading science, but it actually says philosophy SHOULDN"T lead science, what should I conclude?
It's difficult for me to comment on your misinterpretation of data.
I grew up the child of two masters students and I know the range of philosophical discussions that went on in my household with my parents' friends that lead to specific avenues of research. I've always assumed it was just part of the process. In college I've had professors confirm this exact thing time and time again, and studying history I've learned that the natural sciences (among other things) arose from philosophers and philosophical thought.Hearing nope you're wrong, no matter how loud, isn't going to change the conclusion I've formed based on every book I've read on the subject and the direct testimony of every scientific mind I've personally known (anecdotal, I know) isn't going to change my mind. Showing you the precise same data hasn't managed to change your mind, but interpret the data the opposite way. I can only assume because you have hysterical truth blindness or something.
Meat, could you comment specifically on
Assertation: a famous philosopher (Bergson) leading a nobel prize scientist (Prigogine) towards new questions and new discoveries.
with a direct quote from the article
It seems evident from these passages defending the virtue of scientific investigation and suggesting a distrust of logical argumentation that Prigogine and Stengers prefer that philosophers concern themselves with interpreting the results of scientific inquiry instead of devising arguments independent of scientific research, or prescribing limits on the significance of the future work of scientists. Their remarks suggest that philosophy should not lead science -- it should only follow.
You can't give reason why that should be so without recourse to philosophy.
It seems to me you are using a very specific discussion within philosophy to support your very broad assertion from the OP. Plus, even the quote you presented doesn't malign philosophy's role in interpretation. Do you share that concession to its worth? If not, how can you argue for the quote?
Meat, could you comment specifically on
Assertation: a famous philosopher (Bergson) leading a nobel prize scientist (Prigogine) towards new questions and new discoveries.
with a direct quote from the article
It seems evident from these passages defending the virtue of scientific investigation and suggesting a distrust of logical argumentation that Prigogine and Stengers prefer that philosophers concern themselves with interpreting the results of scientific inquiry instead of devising arguments independent of scientific research, or prescribing limits on the significance of the future work of scientists. Their remarks suggest that philosophy should not lead science -- it should only follow.
Bergson lead Prigogine towards new venues and new ideas.
That is not the same thing as leading science at large.
If you knew anything about Bergson you would maybe be able to understand he saw science as unable to deal with one precise topic, mainly the dynamism of time, because science's main tool, mathemathics, is itself static.
That is mainly the point Prigogine is saying Bergson was wrong about. (And I would add Prigogine got that wrong because in some texts, Bergson says himself that it's the case for the mathematics of his time, but that new developpements in mathematics may well prove him wrong.)
Edit : No, seems Prigogine knew that : "Bergson was correct in recognizing the exclusions of the sciences of his age, but he has nothing to tell us about any limitations of science today."
He also says : His task (Bergson) as a philosopher was to attempt to make explicit inside physics the aspects of time he thought science was neglecting.
Reflecting upon this, Prigogine basically said : hey, it's right, we scientits got that whole wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff wrong, and went to win a nobel prize over this idea.
Maybe you can rip off the ONE sentence in a long article that goes toward proving your point, misinterpeting it out of context, but really, you think you are fooling someone (other than yourself, I mean) by concluding from a sentence against the whole thesis of the article... come on.
Bergson lead Prigogine towards new venues and new ideas.
So Pirgogine thinks that philosophy should follow, not lead, because he followed a philosopher to get to the nobel prize...
That makes NO sense. And contradicts most of the article.
Yes, a scientist is in fact working on something that a philosopher at one point commented on. Philosophers have commented on everything. That does not mean that he's using the philosophy or that the philosophy lead there.
Its not one sentence where Prigogine thinks Bergson was wrong
- While Prigogine shares Bergson’s dissatisfaction with this limitation of classical science, he disagrees with Bergson’s suggestion that the physical sciences are by their methodological characteristics unable to ever provide an adequate account of time.
-Prigogine derives his evidence for the significance of time from comparatively recent work in chemistry and thermodynamics. Since he finds the reasons for rediscovering the significance of time within science, he dismisses Bergson’s view of the necessary limitations of scientific inquiry
This effectively refutes your assertation that he's following Bergson.. twice. 1) is that he's following the evidence, not philosophy and 2) (Prigogine said that)Bergson said science was completely unable to ever do this.
Thus the limitations Bergson criticized are beginning to be overcome, not by abandoning the scientific approach or abstract thinking but by perceiving the limitations of the concepts of classical dynamics and by discovering new formulations valid in more general situations. (OOC 93)
-Prigogine claims that science need no longer be encumbered with the limitations cited by Bergson
-Prigogine and Stengers point in this direction when they recommend that science be as mindful of its failures as its successes. Their work shows that scientists’ attempts to treat all processes as theoretically reversible processes have failed to account for the results of many experimental investigations.
The science is being led by the science.. as it should be.
I have to conclude you're looking at the things you're posting to me through philosophy colored glasses. The statements that you're ascribing to them simply are not there. When I try to bring out the specific problems between what you say and what you show all I get is insults and growly rhetoric. (i try to give an argument along with my insults and growly rhetoric)
Man you are thick :-)
In the introduction to La nouvelle Alliance, p29, Gallimard, Prigogine goes to explain his main sources of inspiration (my translation) :
"Newton, in the principia "Absolute time, true and mathematic, in itself anf from it's own nature, flowing in an uniform way without relation to something external, we call also duration" Berson, in Creative evolution "The universe is in a state of duration (dure). The more we will get to the bottom of time's nature, the more we will understand that duration signify invention, creation of forms, continual elaboration of absolute novelty" Nowadays, these two dimensions articulates themselves instead of excluding one another."
You see there - Prigogine, paying tribute to two persons - Newton and Bergson. From his own freaking hand in his own freaking book!
The title of his book, THE NEW ALLIANCE, is about correcting Bergson with Newton and Newton with Bergson.
Go and hide your head in sand again if you want...
By the way, this sentence you are quoting : "Prigogine and Stengers point in this direction when they recommend that science be as mindful of its failures as its successes. Their work shows that scientists’ attempts to treat all processes as theoretically reversible processes have failed to account for the results of many experimental investigation"
Is about Bergson showing why Newton was wrong by postulating reversible processes as defining what science is. They are taking Bergson's side against Newton here! The idea that reversibility was leaving something unexplained about time was Bergson's idea. One of the ideas that Prigogine agreed with and says "Hey, this philosopher is right, let's go back to the workbench"!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hesitate to get involved in this debate, if you can call it that, however, for the 'Philosphy is bunkus' side, perhaps this essay will help.
http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/uses.htm
Perhaps it won't.
I do know that if you come into the argument with the initial perception of 'philosphy is stupid, if it isn't stupid, it isn't philosophy', then it will be difficult to achieve communication.
If you define your terms so that there's no possible way for your position to change, there's little to be done.
an you are thick :-)
I'm thick because you misread something. Badly.
In the introduction to La nouvelle Alliance, p29, Gallimard, Prigogine goes to explain his main sources of inspiration (my translation)
Right, So now i need to track down a book in french to verify that you didn't do with it what you've done with everything you've done to your sources in English.
"Hey, we need to figure out time" is sort of a given with or without philosophers.
I hesitate to get involved in this debate, if you can call it that, however, for the 'Philosphy is bunkus' side, perhaps this essay will help.
Its a little vague, fuzzy, and optimistic.
I do know that if you come into the argument with the initial perception of 'philosphy is stupid, if it isn't stupid, it isn't philosophy', then it will be difficult to achieve communication.And if one enters the argument with the initial perception that philosophy is a glorious and eminently useful endeavor and anyone that doesn't know that is a mouth breathing troglodyte?
I think you're precluding the idea of people coming to their "preconceptions" with regards to the conversation for good reasons.
And if one enters the argument with the initial perception that philosophy is a glorious and eminently useful endeavor and anyone that doesn't know that is a mouth breathing troglodyte?I think you're precluding the idea of people coming to their "preconceptions" with regards to the conversation for good reasons.
I think we're getting hung up on definitions.
I've been reading this thread, and a lot of the anti-philosophy stuff that's made me go 'really?' is the over-the top stuff about how you can't believe anything and so everything is pointless, and how silly it is that philosphers had to spend years to decide people are real.
What is philosophy? Is it people thinking about things that can't be proven and have no tangible value or effects? Is it *only* this? I feel that some of the 'What use is it, anyway?' crowd have decided that the entirety of philosophy is a tiny subset of what it actually is.
I mean, if I say 'Philosophy is the academic study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, thought, and existence', do you agree or disagree with that definition?
If you disagree, there's really nothing left to say. If you agree, then you can see that philosophy goes hand-in-hand with mathematics and the scientific method when it comes to figuring things out.
Not all philopshpers are good, doing good work. Not all scientists are, either.
Philosophy is a method, not a result. The thinking you do, before you decide which experiment to start with? Philosophy.
an you are thick :-)I'm thick because you misread something. Badly.
In the introduction to La nouvelle Alliance, p29, Gallimard, Prigogine goes to explain his main sources of inspiration (my translation)Right, So now i need to track down a book in french to verify that you didn't do with it what you've done with everything you've done to your sources in English.
"Hey, we need to figure out time" is sort of a given with or without philosophers.
Ballet Dancer! Wohoo!
Ok, this tread is way past ridicoulous.
But I'm enjoying it, if only to remember myself how fascinating the human mind can be.
*Hugs BigNorseWolf
I love you, man. Seriously, you are amazing! I which I had only but a part of your stubborness. I envy you. No questions, no problems, no way to change your mind. You are a rock! You have all the truth, right there, in your sheer will to be right!
You win! Have it your way! Science! Wohoo! Philosophy is useless and never had any influence of scientific though! I finally saw the light! You converted me! I'll now pray on the altar of science! What are facts good for, anyway? Wait.. what? Ah, no matter! Science, science!
Now that I'm part of your church, I'll try to convince the Tea Party's guys Jesus was only a man, AS SCIENCE SAID! Seems I'll have more chances!
Ok, where are those damned pills now?
I think we're getting hung up on definitions.
Definitely. "What is philosophy" is a huge problem in philosophy and in linguistics.
When I say philosophy I primarily mean things like the ontological argument. It tries to start with as little information as possible and advance as far as possible. It is, as one of the articles said, a monolog to nature rather than a dialog with it.
I've been reading this thread, and a lot of the anti-philosophy stuff that's made me go 'really?' is the over-the top stuff about how you can't believe anything and so everything is pointless, and how silly it is that philosphers had to spend years to decide people are real.
Descartes was considered groundbreaking.
What is philosophy? Is it people thinking about things that can't be proven and have no tangible value or effects? Is it *only* this? I feel that some of the 'What use is it, anyway?' crowd have decided that the entirety of philosophy is a tiny subset of what it actually is.
I think its entirely possible to do philosophy about things that exist... but why wouldn't you rather do science instead? The entire point of science is the experiment: you need to test your ideas because there's every possibility that now matter how carefully you thought something out a flaw in your thinking or something you didn't know could mess you up.
I mean, if I say 'Philosophy is the academic study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, thought, and existence', do you agree or disagree with that definition?
I think that definition is too broad. It would describe every department in a university.
Not all philopshpers are good, doing good work. Not all scientists are, either.
Well, the difference is that you can tell bad science because it isn't conforming to reality. The long term effects of red dye number7 on pumice rocks may not be particularly useful but at least it should be accurate.
Philosophy is a method, not a result. The thinking you do, before you decide which experiment to start with? Philosophy.
that equates philosophy with thinking, which is too broad.