Ok, where are those damned pills now?
You want the blue one.
I think that definition is too broad. It would describe every department in a university.
Which is why, if you get advanced degrees in nearly every department in a university, you are granted the title 'Doctor of Philosophy'.
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.
I love you Evil Lincoln. Rhetoric is the sweet science of discourse - and it's NOT ad hom to call someone on a B.S. argument. Sometimes, people really ARE being silly.
Philosophy is a method, not a result. The thinking you do, before you decide which experiment to start with? Philosophy.
This is really all I've been trying to say. Philosophy is inherent in science because without philosophy science would have no direction. In this context, philosophy defines the rational relationship between scientific observations and predictions.
But all this argument we've been having has been predicated on is that if we can prove to BNW that science IS philosophy, or needs philosophy, or uses philosophy, then we can get him to admit it has a use because he likes science. Hey, who doesn't?
But I think it's no overstatement to say that the vast majority of contemporary philosophy is focused in the normative domain; ethics and morality especially. In this it has an enormous impact on the social sciences, as well as the lives of everyone on this planet.
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.
Exceedingly well put. This kind of behaviour is a serious roadblock to real discourse. I see it all the time and it drives me crazy.
exceedingly well put. This kind of behaviour is a serious roadblock to real discourse. I see it all the time and it drives me crazy.
Accusing someone else of a mental problem is real discourse... when the other person disagrees with you.
But I think it's no overstatement to say that the vast majority of contemporary philosophy is focused in the normative domain; ethics and morality especially. In this it has an enormous impact on the social sciences, as well as the lives of everyone on this planet.
That ethics and morality (or lack thereof) affects everyone is undoubtable truth. The question is if the study and normalization of the language behind ethics and morality really do anything.
I don't. I think people get their basic ideas and pick a philosophy that will agree with them if they bother to look one. At the core the person is unchanged. If someone thinks its ok to curb stomp a homeless person i highly doubt that that any mode of rational examination of what they're doing is going to change their minds.
BNW,
At this point, I think I need to have a definition form you on what 'philosophy' is. Because right now, I honestly don't have anything other than 'something I think is meaningless and valueless'.
We've established that you feel 'thinking about things in an academic fashion' is too broad. So, can you give your broadest acceptable definition of Philosophy to us, so we can try to establish what in *that* is worthwhile?
The definitions I've found for philosophy that encapsulate what i'm saying (one of them since page 2)
1) a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy
Please note the word chiefly. Science is not philosophy because the chief means of of getting understanding is observation. You use observations to reach your tentative conclusions and then you use more observations to test them.
I realize that speculation and intuition are a neccesary part of science, but that equates philosophy with all thinking, or all well done thinking. Thats not what i mean by philosophy and I'm pretty sure its not what most people are thinking of when they say it.
2) A monolog with nature, whereas science is a dialog. (i really like that line)
In science you have an idea. Then you push it out into the cold cruel world of reality and try to kill it with a hammer. If it survives, you know its got some worth.
3) The og approach. I can look up the definition for a rock a boulder, and a pebble. Or i can point to them. About that size its a boulder, about that size its a rock, about that size its a pebble.
*points to the ontological argument for god* THAT is the sort of reasoning i mean by philosophy. I believe someone said the term was a priori reasoning.
I don't. I think people get their basic ideas and pick a philosophy that will agree with them if they bother to look one. At the core the person is unchanged. If someone thinks its ok to curb stomp a homeless person i highly doubt that that any mode of rational examination of what they're doing is going to change their minds.
So because some people are not rational inputs then it is pointless to try to reason with those who are?
So. The idea behind the death penalty, or indeed any penalty for a crime, isn't necessarily punishment but deterrent for people to do so. Despite this, people commit violent crimes, murder, rape, etc. So why bother making it illegal? Those that have decided it is okay to do these things will do them regardless of them being illegal.
If you propose that no one can ever be swayed by a rational argument into changing their opinion on a subject (and you're a fantastic example of this, by the way) then why have democracy at all? Why have any system of government that is, according to you only superficially, based on rational argument and debate over issues both moral and prudential? Clearly we are deluding ourselves into thinking any existence other than anarchy is possible.
Apart from being, I'm sorry, absurd, it's simply not true. People ARE swayed by rational arguments, even about morality, and therein lies the impetus behind most good changes we've seen in the last few centuries. Furthermore I'd put it to you that the negative changes (e.g. the current slide towards oligarchy) are caused by bad reasoning and logical fallacies.
The importance of such moral philosophizing is this. Many people may decide not to steal/kill/whatever on prudential grounds. In other words, fear of getting put in the slammer. At some point in their life something else might be more forcefully prudent than following that law. If they also have an understanding of why it is not only illegal (imprudent) but immoral, it will multiply the force urging them not to do the thing the law doesn't want them to do. Assuming that all laws have a basis in reinforcing moral behavior (but not criminalizing immoral behavior where it doesn't harm another), which is absolutely debatable in itself. If nothing else it's what we should aspire to.
But getting to your precise argument. You are either saying "(all) people are unswayed by rational arguments in regards to moral issues" in which case all we have to do is prove that one person in all of history has been convinced of a moral or ethical position because of a rational argument and we've proved that philosophy is "good" and "useful". Or you are arguing that *most* people are unswayed by philosophical/rational arguments in regards to moral issues, which implies that *some* people are, which is already admitting that philosophy has had a positive impact and is "good" and/or "useful".
Sort of a self-defeating argument.
Can you at least admit that, good, normative philosophy has a positive impact on society?
The definitions I've found for philosophy that encapsulate what i'm saying (one of them since page 2)
*points to the ontological argument for god* THAT is the sort of reasoning i mean by philosophy. I believe someone said the term was a priori reasoning.
You're calling out the Ontological existence of God as the 'sort of reasoning' that you qualify as philosophy... and the source you site even states that it is a controversial topic.
I could point to the science of creationism and use it in a similar way to attempt to debunk all science.
Your first definition of philosophy is basically 'think about stuff to try to figure it out'.
But I do see how we've reached this impasse. I learned that Philosophy was 'well done thinking'. It's a method of thought to attempt to get to the heart of the matter. You're looking at the philosophers who think only on the things that can't be observed and say 'this is wankery, and therefore all philosophy is wankery'.
I disagree. That philosphical wankery is using the same tools that people use when trying to determine what hypothesis to test when thinking about things that can be tested.
I will agree with you that philosophy, when pointed at things that can't be observed, can seem pointless and a waste of time.
I will also point out that Calculus and Differential Equations, when used to do random integration and derivatives, can seem pointless and a waste of time.
This doesn't mean philosophy as a whole is pointless, any more than unapplied mathematics are pointless.
negative rhetorical definitions
That's the problem we're trying to convince you that you have. You will only accept definitions of philosophy that fit your pre-determined distaste for it, despite it being demonstrably far broader than your limits allow. It's one big no true scotsman argument. We can't ever convince you that philosophy is good because when we give you an example you say "that's not really philosophy".
Definition 1)I don't think it's really fair to use a definition so short and narrow for a study that is so broad. But even IN THIS DEFINITION, when you admit that science (and other bodies of thought) use speculation, you immediately dismiss this because you don't like the implications that would have on your own argument.
Def 2)I understand you like that line, but that's only a definition of philosophy where it relates to science, and since, again, philosophy is much broader and has wider applications than merely science, this is an unduly dismissive definition. You really like this analogy (not definition) because it supports your distaste for philosophy.
Def 3)You point to bad reasoning. That's what I'd call bad philosophy. Since you think that poorly reasoned philosophy DEFINES what philosophy is, THIS IS A PROBLEM. Furthermore, it's as important if not more important to understand why bad arguments are wrong as it is to understand why good arguments are right. Similarly it's the failed experiments that define science as much as successful ones.
My disagreement with you on this isn't particularly strong. Try reading it in Eeyore's voice, that should convey the general attitude.
So because some people are not rational inputs then it is pointless to try to reason with those who are?
I don't think there are any set rules or methods of reasoning that are going to help you do that.
So. The idea behind the death penalty, or indeed any penalty for a crime, isn't necessarily punishment but deterrent for people to do so.
Some feel its a matter of justice. Some feel its a matter of having leverage to get a murderer to plea bargain. Some feel its a holocaust against minority groups.
Despite this, people commit violent crimes, murder, rape, etc. So why bother making it illegal? Those that have decided it is okay to do these things will do them regardless of them being illegal.
I'm not sure it should be made illegal? I know I come across as a leftist nut on the wallstreet thread but that's only because I'm a leftist nut on a that ( and a few other) issues.
If you propose that no one can ever be swayed by a rational argument into changing their opinion on a subject
I would not equate a rational argument with a philosophical one, on two accounts. Some philosophical arguments are crazy enough to be the material component for a fireball spell. Not all rational arguments are philosophical. For example, arguments against or for the death penalty based on crime rates are (supposed to be) evidence based.
(and you're a fantastic example of this, by the way)
Show, don't tell.
If you don't care enough to demonstrate that you're just insulting. Its starting to grate. If you think I'm supposed to be impressed because someone makes a claim and puts a citation behind it you're sadly mistaken. I've seen the tactic of putting up citations that didn't quite match up with the claims far far too often to buy it now.
then why have democracy at all?
Well, we have a limited democracy, and we have that because they're not making me dictator of course.
That statement changes when you change the frame of reference by the way.
The point of a limited democratic republic (i think i got that right) is that its necessary for the greater good for people to cooperate and pool their resources. Its also necessary, for its own sake and for the greater good, that people be allowed a fair measure of freedom.
Democracy is the lest bad way we've found of doing that.
Why have any system of government that is, according to you only superficially, based on rational argument and debate over issues both moral and prudential? Clearly we are deluding ourselves into thinking any existence other than anarchy is possible.
If the ideals of our government had been applied fairly and rationally we wouldn't have had slavery.
Apart from being, I'm sorry, absurd, it's simply not true. People ARE swayed by rational arguments, even about morality, and therein lies the impetus behind most good changes we've seen in the last few centuries.
Is the rationality really important though? People are swayed, more easily I've found, but Irrational arguments.. ESPECIALLY about morality.
Furthermore I'd put it to you that the negative changes (e.g. the current slide towards oligarchy) are caused by bad reasoning and logical fallacies.
I'd agree that bad arguments being loudly and repeatedly shouted are part of the problem, but i think they appeal to a level of instinct that is hard if not impossible to counter with rationality.
If they also have an understanding of why it is not only illegal (imprudent) but immoral, it will multiply the force urging them not to do the thing the law doesn't want them to do.
Or they can used their increased knowledge of argumentation to justify the actions of what they want to do anyway.
I mean, politicians have more law and philosophy training than anyone else. Philosophy is one of the more common pre-business school majors. those two groups well...
Or you are arguing that *most* people are unswayed by philosophical/rational arguments in regards to moral issues, which implies that *some* people are, which is already admitting that philosophy has had a positive impact and is "good" and/or "useful".
Most. Its not self defeating because philosophical arguments can be made just as easily in the bad direction as the good. I think or rational reasoning is a paring knife and rhetoric as a sword. Both can be used for good or bad its all about the wielder, and the one with the sword has an advantage.
Can you at least admit that, good, normative philosophy has a positive impact on society?
Good as in Paladin good? Or good as in well done? Yes and no, respectively.
You're calling out the Ontological existence of God as the 'sort of reasoning' that you qualify as philosophy... and the source you site even states that it is a controversial topic.
I could point to the science of creationism and use it in a similar way to attempt to debunk all science.
The difference being that science has a pretty big and active trash can, and the scientific community stuffed creation "science" into it with torches and pitchforks (the geologists threw rocks)
Your first definition of philosophy is basically 'think about stuff to try to figure it out'.
It is from the dictionary, its not something that i made up.
But I do see how we've reached this impasse. I learned that Philosophy was 'well done thinking'.
Don't you think that's a little broad? What subject wouldn't that be?
It's a method of thought to attempt to get to the heart of the matter.
Now that might get somewhere. What is the method?
You're looking at the philosophers who think only on the things that can't be observed and say 'this is wankery, and therefore all philosophy is wankery'.
Well, they've been a little weird on the stuff we can observe too. But to your basic point
1) I'm a skeptic. I give most ideas a rough time.
2) Yes. I have had bad experiences with philosophers in the past (stop laughing, not that way) and it might be coloring my perceptions of philosophers now.
I disagree. That philosphical wankery is using the same tools that people use when trying to determine what hypothesis to test when thinking about things that can be tested.
There's nothing wrong with using a stepstool to get something off the top shelf. There is something wrong with trying to use a step stool to clean your gutters.
Science is one step of "wankery" . Then you TRY to knock your scaffolding down. If that works then you add another step, and try to knock it down.
Philosophy is building a jacobs ladder up as high as it can go.
I will agree with you that philosophy, when pointed at things that can't be observed, can seem pointless and a waste of time.
I will also point out that Calculus and Differential Equations, when used to do random integration and derivatives, can seem pointless and a waste of time.
I was not overly fond of calculus because of its lack of word problems.
This doesn't mean philosophy as a whole is pointless, any more than unapplied mathematics are pointless.
Math at least has to be right. There's a trash can for tossing out bad ideas.
That's the problem we're trying to convince you that you have. You will only accept definitions of philosophy that fit your pre-determined distaste for it, despite it being demonstrably far broader than your limits allow.
The demonstration so far is to define philosophy as all well done thought. I understand why you think my definition is too narrow. Do you see why that definition might be a little broad?
It's one big no true scotsman argument. We can't ever convince you that philosophy is good because when we give you an example you say "that's not really philosophy".
The examples were a matter of whether or not the philosophy was influential in the decision.
Definition 1)I don't think it's really fair to use a definition so short and narrow for a study that is so broad. But even IN THIS DEFINITION, when you admit that science (and other bodies of thought) use speculation, you immediately dismiss this because you don't like the implications that would have on your own argument.
No, I dismiss it because i don't think in binary. Your options are not never speculate or a wild wild west of ideas with no rules. Speculation is necessary but in as limited quantities as is feasible.
Def 2)I understand you like that line, but that's only a definition of philosophy where it relates to science, and since, again, philosophy is much broader and has wider applications than merely science, this is an unduly dismissive definition. You really like this analogy (not definition) because it supports your distaste for philosophy.
Its nice not to be alone in the universe. (and to be sharing philistine hell with a Nobel prize laureate at that)
Its MORE than that the idea agrees with me (although that certainly helps) its that it sums up quite nicely what i think the problem with philosophy is: a lack of feedback from an external and objective source.
Def 3)You point to bad reasoning. That's what I'd call bad philosophy. Since you think that poorly reasoned philosophy DEFINES what philosophy is, THIS IS A PROBLEM. Furthermore, it's as important if not more important to understand why bad arguments are wrong as it is to understand why good arguments are right.
Can that same sort of hypothetical reasoning be used well? Is it that that specific argument is bad, or is there something inherent in trying to move that far from your observations to your conclusions?
Similarly it's the failed experiments that define science as much as successful ones.
When you add water to acid instead of the other way around at least you learn something. Philosophers have been quoting, expounding on, and replicating that argument for centuries.
Trying to work on an ad hoc definition.
Something done at the universities philosophy department that wouldn't be done better elsewhere?
But I do see how we've reached this impasse. I learned that Philosophy was 'well done thinking'.Don't you think that's a little broad? What subject wouldn't that be?
BINGO!
I think you've finally nailed it!That IS what philosophy is. It's every subject. Nearly every subject, historically, arose from philosophy and philosophical thought. They are reinforced by formal reason and logic (science for example) and require a philosophical framework. That's why I keep saying philosophy is ubiquitous because everything that makes a difference today fundamentally arises from philosophy. Even alchemy, which you must admit is largely the basis of physics and chemistry and great minds like Newton considered themselves to practice it, is a PHILOSOPHICAL DISCIPLINE. It was wrong, but because it was based on fundamentally wrong (unverifiable) assumptions. The basic latticework of reason and logic was nonetheless employed.
But yeah, I'm done here. You're impervious to reason.
Here is the time when I can't resist but to point out that the scientific method was largely invented by Francis Bacon... a philosopher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
A conspiracy, I tell you!
Ok, where are those damned pills now?You want the blue one.
Oh, no sir. I have honor, and don't cheat on tail wagging contests!
BINGO!
I think you've finally nailed it!
That IS what philosophy is. It's every subject.
But yeah, I'm done here. You're impervious to reason.
I'm impervious to reason because ... i think the point of a definition is to define something, that is set something that the word is supposed to describe inside it while excluding things that its not supposed to define outside of it.
You have to realize that this is the internet, a conversation between two equals, not a class. You can't exactly impose your non standard definition on someone else and then accuse them of being an idiot because they're using a definition... particularly when the definition they're using is a legitimate one and was established at the beginning of the conversation.
Alright, red pill time.
BINGO!
I think you've finally nailed it!
That IS what philosophy is. It's every subject.
But yeah, I'm done here. You're impervious to reason.I'm impervious to reason because ... i think the point of a definition is to define something, that is set something that the word is supposed to describe inside it while excluding things that its not supposed to define outside of it.
You have to realize that this is the internet, a conversation between two equals, not a class. You can't exactly impose your non standard definition on someone else and then accuse them of being an idiot because they're using a definition... particularly when the definition they're using is a legitimate one and was established at the beginning of the conversation.
I'm asking you to use a definition that wikipedia uses:
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language"Or Dictionary.com: "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline."
Or here's a good one
"phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life."
#s 1,2,4,5,6 are all pretty fine. You refuse to accept any definition except the ones that support your conclusion that philosophy is dumb. These are all fine, standard definitions. You continue to use ONLY definition 2b from merriam-webster.com. Even the definition you accept, but also the other definitions on that very page, describe a very broad and varied discipline.
Yes, we are trying to DEFINE IT, but it's a very broad term, which is what you're not getting. It's not one tiny thing, one specific study, it's a broad range of studies and thus its definition must also be broad as to encompass all of what philosophy is while still being concise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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
There are no 'conclusions based on observation' without a good dose of rational thinking. Many philosophers tried to establish the conclusions you could derive and those you could not from a purely empirical standpoint (without other assumptions besides what we get from our senses). It is not as easy as it appears. For instance, after much work on it, it is well known that science is, quite clearly, NOT a purely empirical endeavour. The idea that science can be strictly defined as something like "man observes - man hypothesizes about the observed - man observes again to see if their hypotheses are correct" is wrong, for instance.
And pragmatism is a philosophical position. The fact that we live in a time where this position had already been thought through, appeared in books, influenced literature leads us to believe that it is the "natural" way we deal eith the world. It is not. Many societies without a codified pursuit of different philosophical positions did not and do not function based on the tenets of pragmatism. Not even our societies are completely pragmatists, and much of our knowledge and way of life derives from other types of philosophical positions.
I think he said 90% of philosophy was malarky and the good 10% was common sense.
I was talking about other poster (Darkwing Duck), but I re-read his post in context and it appears he was saying that some results in science may appear as common sense for the modern person, when it would not for people before those discoveries were made and accepted by society.
I agree. The universe is too weird for common sense alone.
Yes it is. And no amount of data collecting can lead to scientific knowledge.
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...)
I presumed you were talking about this, but I wanted to be sure. You are scratching the surface here. Observations usually act merely as a motivator. Only rarely can one derive strict hypothetical statements from data. See, for instance, Newtonian Mechanics. Newton did not look at a bunch of data and created that set of hypothesis. In fact, the data used by Newton was very scarce. Observation cannot explain the construction of hypothesis in science. The role of observationial data in science comes AFTERWARDS, and it is never (or at least very, very rarely) purely observational in nature. All observation in science is "laced" with theory.
The scientific method is much more fluid than we are led to think by textbook descriptions of it (which, of course, were first proposed by philosophers). It is a quite interesting intellectual endeavour to try to understand its logical and philosophical foundations. Many philosophers have tried to do exactly that and the result for those who decide to learn about it is a better comprehension of the activity. It is interesting even when the philosophers are wrong, because you end up seeing the process from other angles.Philosophy doesn't help decide between different matters of thought either. Philosophy has been working on the existence of God for how long now?
From this quote I can tell that you are primarily concerned with "philosophy as a tool for verifying what is real and its behaviour". Well, tinkering with philosophical ideas throughout the ages led to the concept of a scientific method and it helped with this part of the problem. Philosophy already contributed to it. Now, try to use the scientific method to derive moral laws. Or understand art, knowledge, ethics and politics. You cannot, because philosophers did not design this tool for those activities. Philosophy, on the other hand has been used and is used for all those. And let me tell you, our history has been shaped in the way it has in great part, for good or evil, because of philosophical ideas.
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.
Yup, that is basically what I said, realism was here since forever. Though it's consequences were not thought out and made explicit for centuries. It is called naive realism, as in opposition to critical realism.
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.
I agree that humans have this characteristic. But if scientific inquiry is natural, it should have ocurred to many people before thousands of years of human history came to be. One might argue we did not have the means then, and there were lots of 'scientific minds' waiting for the opportunities to create...
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.
Well the greek high castes, for instance (and this is only an example), had loads of spare time. And they used it quite well, but not with science. The closest they had to it was 'natural philosophy', which ended up being quite important for science, but nowhere near in form to what we think of as science. So I have to disagree with the 'lack of time' explanation.
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.
The press certainly helped A LOT the process. But it took at least two centuries for science to start taking the shape we came to know. And philosophers like Bacon and Descartes, and the 'natural philosopher/scientist' Galileo, all had an important role in taking the singular method used by astronomers with their own considerations to forge ideas which would shape our world forever.
There are few movements of world history which were not anticipated by philosophical ideas. The fact that many of those which helped forge the future acknowledge it should give you a hint that, perhaps, philosophy is not that limited, small, useless thing you have come to think. The very foundation of US law, its Constitution, was strongly inspired by philosophical thought.
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.Well the greek high castes, for instance (and this is only an example), had loads of spare time. And they used it quite well, but not with science. The closest they had to it was 'natural philosophy', which ended up being quite important for science, but nowhere near in form to what we think of as science. So I have to disagree with the 'lack of time' explanation.
Interrestingly, the very sociological and economical idea that BNG and you are discussing, mainly that theoritical activities requires a lot leisure for a small part of society, and so at least agrarian society and slavery or serfdom (now fortunately slowly replaced by machines of mass production) is required was first examined and discussed by Plato and Aristotle, who were both part of the greek high castes and who drew the basics principles of western sociology, economy and political though.
That goes to show, again, that what BNG is ignoring is the vast background of historical ideas his own though is based upon, ideas mainly derived from the work of philosophers. Including scientific ideas.
Those ideas are so pervasives we learn about them in school or at home, often taking them for granted and "common sense", but are blind about the real efforts it took for those ideas to actually happens.
BNG stated, for example, that the basic laws of modern logic, the one we got from the fantastic effort and genius of Frege, Russell and a few others, were just common sense because you could write them down on one piece of paper.
Saying that does not only shows an ignorance for history, but also of logic, because a lot of this "common sense" is actually not common-sensical, as shown by clinical results of psychology : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_reasoning#Everyday_reasoning
And, after being refered to a lot of papers establishing clearly the links between philosophy and scientific though, after having discussed cases after cases - Bacon, Hobbes, Leibniz, Bergson, Descartes, Darwin, Russell, the presocratics, Lewis, etc. After being shown the existence of research groups where philosophers and scientists (working in physics, computer science, biology, cognitive sciences, psychology, mathematics) are working together. After statements by physicists, computer scientists and philosophers in this very thread vouching for the value of philosophy, after all that he still refuses to admit he may be wrong about his initial assumption.
Not only that, but he's been asking others to be logical, back up their assertions with links to credible sources and facts and while himself refused to be corrected when his logic was flawed, disregarded every fact presented to him by way of flimsy rhetoric and programmed misreading and never accepted to back up his own claims with any serious historical or actual facts.
I really hope this thread was of value for other readers that BNG. I'ts been for me. I had to clarify myself on a couple of points and now see I had missed on some important distinctions, went back to check on sources and problems I had not reviewed for a couple of years, had some great links to check about biology and physics.
(It also reminded me that discussing evolution with persons from the USA is very risky. Because, I guess, of the religious discussions in this country, it is very difficult to raise questions about evolution without being flagged as someones who would want to proove it false, and not as someone who only wants to critically look at it in order to improve our understanding of it's working and make it a better theory.)
I am now reading a book Nicos recommended me on the "uselessness of philosphy" and having a lot of fun doing so, even if I think the general thesis of the book does not represent the reality of what philosophy is, even by the admission of it's author who clearly consider his own work as a satire and says so in the intoduction and the conclusion. But it's a good satire, and a lot of criticisms the author makes about the way academia is wrong, not by teaching philosophy, but by teaching it as a specialty and not including it in every program, is a good criticism. I also think philosophy could gain a lot by working more and earlier with other disciplines. Now, you almost only can do so once graduated, and yes, that should change.
So, this discussion has been fruitfull, at least for me. I had a lot of free time this past week, as I was sick, but now I feel better and probably won't have the time to check this thread as often.
I wish good luck to those who will try to show BNG a little more about philosophy. You'll need it.
IMO every one who want to know of the importance of philosophy should read this book:
A History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russel.
There is a audiobook version on librivox.org.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, the most obstinately stupid thread on Paizo.
Someone creates a deeply stupid false dichotomy and then prods away at anything else anyone says with this deeply stupid false dichotomy, attempting to cajole people through force of post-numbers to accept the terms of their deeply stupid false dichotomy.
All of this despite some elegant, sophisticated posts from those who wish to be helpful and educational.
If we whipped out Occam's razor, you could trim this entire thread down to about three posts.
How dull.
How terrible for other people's greatness to be dragged down by zealous, determined, obstinate, self-willed small-mindedness.
How deeply, profoundly, resoundingly rude.
I am genuinely upset. I rave on about how lovely these forums are.
So. The idea behind the death penalty, or indeed any penalty for a crime, isn't necessarily punishment but deterrent for people to do so. Despite this, people commit violent crimes, murder, rape, etc. So why bother making it illegal? Those that have decided it is okay to do these things will do them regardless of them being illegal.
(raises hand) The chance of an executed murderer committing another murder is roughly 0%.
Now, try to use the scientific method to derive moral laws. You cannot.
If you propose that no one can ever be swayed by a rational argument into changing their opinion on a subject (and you're a fantastic example of this, by the way) then why have democracy at all? Why have any system of government that is, according to you only superficially, based on rational argument and debate over issues both moral and prudential? Clearly we are deluding ourselves into thinking any existence other than anarchy is possible.
I'd argue that people are swayed a lot less by rational argument and a lot more by what they think everyone else around them is doing. Why else would the majority of the world's population believe in mutually-contradictory religions? Democracy plays directly into that tendency: "Well, 3 out of 4 voters agreed! It must be a good idea!" And, overall, even a BAD idea enacted that way is probably better than all of us clubbing each other over the head to see who wins.
Let me hasten to add that I view philosophy as one of the building blocks of science.
Philosophy sets guidelines to avoid flaws in logic. It does not, by iteself, lead us to learn anything new about the universe in which we live.
Science uses those guidelines, along with testing and observation, to unlock how the universe works.
So. The idea behind the death penalty, or indeed any penalty for a crime, isn't necessarily punishment but deterrent for people to do so. Despite this, people commit violent crimes, murder, rape, etc. So why bother making it illegal? Those that have decided it is okay to do these things will do them regardless of them being illegal.(raises hand) The chance of an executed murderer committing another murder is roughly 0%.
Fair enough. I would respond with "the chance of an executed thief has a 0% chance of committing another theft". Why is execution reserved only for murders (or almost exclusively)? If it's okay to kill someone to prevent them from committing a crime they've shown a proclivity to commit, why limit it to just murders? For the record I'm against the death penalty but for encouraging suicides among life sentencees.
What this cuts to though is my evolving theory that behaviors of individuals and of states can be put down to conflicts between moral and prudential reasons. I think the case of execution to be one where the moral implications outweigh the prudential ones, but obviously there is disagreement on this point, which is why it is legal in some states and not in others.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I would respond with "the chance of an executed thief has a 0% chance of committing another theft". Why is execution reserved only for murders (or almost exclusively)? If it's okay to kill someone to prevent them from committing a crime they've shown a proclivity to commit, why limit it to just murders?
Theft can be repaid. Murder cannot.
While I can't tell you what philosophy is good for, I can tell you why you think philosophy doesn't answer anything. As a little bit of history, physics as we know it was formerly called natural philosophy. You can likely point out similar such things for fields such as psychology, chemistry, and political science. What has happened is that once they developed some kind of methodology they were separated from philosophy. So all that is left of philosophy is what we have yet to find some methodology for. In short, we have defined philosophy to be the useless stuff.
If you propose that no one can ever be swayed by a rational argument into changing their opinion on a subject (and you're a fantastic example of this, by the way) then why have democracy at all? Why have any system of government that is, according to you only superficially, based on rational argument and debate over issues both moral and prudential? Clearly we are deluding ourselves into thinking any existence other than anarchy is possible.I'd argue that people are swayed a lot less by rational argument and a lot more by what they think everyone else around them is doing. Why else would the majority of the world's population believe in mutually-contradictory religions? Democracy plays directly into that tendency: "Well, 3 out of 4 voters agreed! It must be a good idea!" And, overall, even a BAD idea enacted that way is probably better than all of us clubbing each other over the head to see who wins.
I never said that people were only swayed by rational arguments, but that some people happen to be rational inputs in democracy. Perhaps a shrinking minority. And mind you I'm talking about swaying beliefs, not swaying actual actions. That's much harder. To get people to do hard things you must convince them it is both the right (moral) and prudent thing to do. The biggest problem arises when people sort of reverse engineer a sense of morality, or try to obfuscate the underlying facts, based on their personal preservation. Case in point climate change. If we have to change our ways as to impact the environment less, it may indeed cost us jobs, money, or efficiency in the short term. Therefore it mustn't be true. People often act in a way that is contrary to their beliefs but useful for the time being, but I think we strive to be people both as individuals and as a whole (through democracy) who act morally. Again though, I'm talking shoulds not ares.
Man I never thought I'd be the optimist in such an argument. I'm supposed to be the cynic!
As for the religion point, I can't even begin to hypothesize. The very idea of religion is utterly foreign to me and always has been.
Theft can be repaid. Murder cannot.
Fair enough. I would respond with "the chance of an executed thief has a 0% chance of committing another theft". Why is execution reserved only for murders (or almost exclusively)? If it's okay to kill someone to prevent them from committing a crime they've shown a proclivity to commit, why limit it to just murders?
So the ability for the offender to make reparations is why murder is punished by death? How about rape? What about causing irreparable psychological harm in some way? Also, as far as I know, retrieving something stolen from a thief would be a civil matter, once his guilt is determined by a criminal court.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the idea of protecting physical property through violence? Like, guy breaks into your home to steal your Xbox, so you shoot him in the brain. That okay? Assuming he isn't also a physical threat to you or anything.
If we whipped out Occam's razor, you could trim this entire thread down to about three posts.
And they'd all be mine!
How dull.
Oh, the ennui!
How terrible for other people's greatness to be dragged down by zealous, determined, obstinate, self-willed small-mindedness.
Hee hee!
How deeply, profoundly, resoundingly rude.
Well, I am French.
So the ability for the offender to make reparations is why murder is punished by death? How about rape? What about causing irreparable psychological harm in some way?
Given that, and especially given the repeat offense rates among rapists, I would certainly execute them as well.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the idea of protecting physical property through violence? Like, guy breaks into your home to steal your Xbox, so you shoot him in the brain. That okay? Assuming he isn't also a physical threat to you or anything.
I live in Texas, where you can legally shoot someone dead for breaking into your neighbor's house, not just yours... but I disagree with that stance.
I would point out, though, that it's hard to tell if the home invader just wants your xbox, or whether rape and/or murder might turn him on, too, once he feels like he's in a position of power over the residents. That's a really tough call, for which simple anwers aren't adequate.
So the ability for the offender to make reparations is why murder is punished by death? How about rape? What about causing irreparable psychological harm in some way?Given that, and especially given the repeat offense rates among rapists, I would certainly execute them as well.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the idea of protecting physical property through violence? Like, guy breaks into your home to steal your Xbox, so you shoot him in the brain. That okay? Assuming he isn't also a physical threat to you or anything.I live in Texas, where you can shoot someone dead for breaking into your neighbor's house, not just yours... but I disagree with that stance.
I would point out, though, that it's hard to tell if the home invader just wants your xbox, or whether rape and/or murder might turn him on, too, once he feels like he's in a position of power over the residents. That's a really tough call, for which simple anwers aren't adequate.
Not that I'll ever be in the situation, but I'd rather the law err on the side of not allowing people to kill one another. Or at least be consistent. Just say it's okay to kill people and we won't have to worry about the death penalty.
And at least you're consistent in your wanting to kill people who are probably bad. But okay, let's roll this out a little farther, why should rape be punishable by execution? If it has to do with psychological trauma and it being infeasible for the perpetrator to repair such damage, then how about child abusers? Both physically and psychologically abusive parents and significant others? Stalkers?
There's a certain amount of criminals who are just sociopaths and can't be rehabilitated. There's also a good amount that turn to crime because they feel they have no other choice, for a variety of reasons. That's far from excusing it but it generally means they can be rehabilitated.
If we have two groups of people, people who can be rehabilitated and people who can't, and given that prison isn't the best environment for such rehabilitation, why have prisons?
I'm just throwing s!@@ out there to see what sticks at this point. I live in a state that doesn't have the death penalty. We also just got conceal carry laws, which I think is about the dumbest f%+*ing thing ever.
If we have two groups of people, people who can be rehabilitated and people who can't, and given that prison isn't the best environment for such rehabilitation, why have prisons?
I have argued at length on these boards that we should not. I believe our current prison system (a) was established based on bizarre and indefensible notions of punishment as some kind of cosmic good, and (b) that it has grown to its current monstrous size and form because of pure profiteering from it as an industry.
Not that I'll ever be in the situation, but I'd rather the law err on the side of not allowing people to kill one another. Or at least be consistent.
Interesting... I pretty much agreed with you, before adding a caveat and a caution, and yet you repied as if we were somehow diametrically disagreeing. Is this some sort of philosophy thing?
Now, try to use the scientific method to derive moral laws. You cannot.Sam Harris obviously disagrees with you.
Since I did not read Harris' book I cannot comment on specifics, but here is my take on what it appears to be and how it relates to my quote.
If, and only if you choose beforehand that morality should be derived froma a pragmatist, materialistic viewpoint, one can use (in an albeit more restricted manner) a 'scientific approach' for deciding on morals. But note that there are many other possible stances which can be taken which do not involve nothing similar to a pragmatist or materialistic position. The only way to decide between these is by means of a philosophical argumentation.
Besides, I'd guess (though I may be wrong) that he is not actually advocating using the kind of process scientists use (construct a hypothesis, see its consequences after implementation and then, change it) but merely saying that morals should be based on scientific evidence. I actually agree with that. But again, there is no scientific data which can, by itself, lead me to this position.
Not that I'll ever be in the situation, but I'd rather the law err on the side of not allowing people to kill one another. Or at least be consistent.Interesting... I pretty much agreed with you, before adding a caveat and a caution, and yet you repied as if we were somehow diametrically disagreeing. Is this some sort of philosophy thing?
Sorry, didn't mean to imply we were disagreeing. I quoted you more because we're having a conversation than because I was necessarily specifically responding to your points in disagreement.
Thank you all for reaffirming my position that philosophy is a religion, not a discipline. Its about as helpfull for science as religion was, and that people are as emotionally invested in philosophy as they are in religion.
The response i saw for philosophy was exactly the same as for the "truth" of religion. Quote something, don't read it, pretend it agrees with you, and completely ignore it when someone calls you on your malarky. You make a point, someone makes a counter point... you completely ignore it and continue on to a different point without addressing anything they said. When that fails insult, deride, defame and demean. The script was followed right down to insisting on the need to get something in a foreign language.
In short, you arrogantly assume that you're in teaching mode: teacher to pupil, not debating or discussion mode between equals. You expect your ideas to be taken for gospel truth and get upset when they're questioned. Like philosophy does with the universe you have a monologue at someone, not a conversation with them. Science can survive being questioned, philosophy cannot.
The script was followed right down to insisting on the need to get something in a foreign language.
I just found out there is a translation (I think it is, as I did not read the english version) in english of that book. The title is so badly translated I missed it, french being my mother tongue and all. Sorry if my bad work at a translation, work I did for the sake of the discussion, was badly taken as being snobbish or something. The book was on lying on the corner of my desk, so I did not check online for an alternate source. I was but trying to provide data relevant to the topic at hand, data I did not know existed in english.
Feel free to take a closer look at what Prigogine and Steingers said about Bergson if you will. My quote was from the very end of the introduction.
http://www.amazon.com/Order-out-chaos-dialogue-nature/dp/0553340824/ref=sr_ 1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1320113383&sr=8-2-spell
By the way, Steingers is a... philosopher of science. Guess the nobel prize winner chemist did not see that as deterrent to work with her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_Stengers
You're, as always, welcome!
Edit : Oh, and you are not my equal on a topic I worked on for the past ten years. Just saying. And philosophy survived, in fact thrived, being questionned for more than 2000 years now.
Thank you all for reaffirming my position that philosophy is a religion, not a discipline. Its about as helpfull for science as religion was, and that people are as emotionally invested in philosophy as they are in religion.
The response i saw for philosophy was exactly the same as for the "truth" of religion. Quote something, don't read it, pretend it agrees with you, and completely ignore it when someone calls you on your malarky. You make a point, someone makes a counter point... you completely ignore it and continue on to a different point without addressing anything they said. When that fails insult, deride, defame and demean. The script was followed right down to insisting on the need to get something in a foreign language.
In short, you arrogantly assume that you're in teaching mode: teacher to pupil, not debating or discussion mode between equals. You expect your ideas to be taken for gospel truth and get upset when they're questioned. Like philosophy does with the universe you have a monologue at someone, not a conversation with them. Science can survive being questioned, philosophy cannot.
Which only proves you still haven't managed to grasp what philosophy is. Nor what religion is (hint: not all religions are semantic and dogmatic, a vast majority are not.)
This whole thread you have refused to have any sort of honest discourse with anyone. We kept trying to show you evidence, to persuade you with facts, with history, etc. It's hard to have a conversation with someone when all they do is shout "B!~@#~$!" back at you all day long, which is all you've done.
If philosophy doesn't mean what your narrow definition of it does, not to most sources, not to someone who studies philosophy, not to someone who practices it professionally (mongoose) or in any historical context, you are wrong. You've not even attempted to make an actual argument against philosophy, because that would mean PARTICIPATING in philosophy (i.e. rational thought).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which only proves you still haven't managed to grasp what philosophy is. Nor what religion is (hint: not all religions are semantic and dogmatic, a vast majority are not.)
This whole thread you have refused to have any sort of honest discourse with anyone. We kept trying to show you evidence, to persuade you with facts, with history, etc. It's hard to have a conversation with someone when all they do is shout "B%@%*+*&" back at you all day long, which is all you've done.
If philosophy doesn't mean what your narrow definition of it does, not to most sources, not to someone who studies philosophy, not to someone who practices it professionally (mongoose) or in any historical context, you are wrong. You've not even attempted to make an actual argument against philosophy, because that would mean PARTICIPATING in philosophy (i.e. rational thought).
I've read your first draft. This version is more eloquent, but no less true. ;-)
Okay so I know I'm coming into this discussion way late, so forgive me for not reading the previous 400 posts.
I really don't understand the philosophy / science dichotomy. Philosophy is about thinking about problems and why things happen the way they do. The scientific method is about testing that. Basically science is just the philosophy that we've tested.
One person's philosophy is not another person's philosophy. Some people have flawed logic and thus flawed philosophies. Some people have flawed arithmetic and thus flawed math. Some people think the sum of 1 to infinity equals -1. Just because someone screws it up, does not mean philosophy or math are useless.
Philosophy untested can lead to confusing or wrong answers. Similarly, formulas where the math isn't checked can end up being useless or dangerous if the math is just wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly what it says on the tin. What good is philosophy? How involved was it in the generation of of our modern ideas and technology?
Keep in mind that what most people understand for "Science" today is actually rooted in a philosophical school, namely Empiricism, which proposes that knowledge comes only from sensory experience.
Sure, today it seems rather evident to say that scientific progress must come from an objective view of the universe, which in turn is possible by empirical data. But that seems like the case simply because we are used to such a conception. If you get down to it, you eventually get to a point that you can't really differentiate one reason from another, and you have to essentially take a leap of faith to opt for your preferred school of understanding.
Now, one could say "But that discussion serves no purpose; I can still touch my nose, regardless of the fact I cannot fundamentally prove it is there beyond all possible doubt". And maybe it is. But the thing is that it is now. Back in the day it wasn't, and the process that allowed people to reach a consensus regarding facts being necessary for objective thinking was a long and arduous one.
And it was all possible thanks to Philosophy.
So in the end, essentially everything that makes us beings of reason, be it science, religion, or whathaveyou, comes from Philosophy. It is the art of understanding reason itself.