I'm sorry. I don't get it..
How can a scientific philosopher 'Catch a Lion in the Sahara Desert' ?
.
We place a locked cage onto a given point in the desert. After that
we introduce the following logical system:Axiom 1: The set of lions in the Sahara is not empty.
Axiom 2: If there exists a lion in the Sahara, then there exists a
lion in the cage.Procedure: If P is a theorem, and if the following is holds:
"P implies Q", then Q is a theorem.Theorem 1: There exists a lion in the cage.
.
.
I know.
Plus, on a scale of 1 to 10, it is only amusing.
.
.
How can a scientific philosopher 'Catch a Lion in the Sahara Desert' ?
Evidence for my position continues to mount.
|
Did anyone quote Conan yet?
I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.
Evidence for my position continues to mount..
How can a scientific philosopher 'Catch a Lion in the Sahara Desert' ?
.
But you just broke a camel's back with that statement.
.
What are you babbling about, Magus?
.
I'm saying, There is no way of falsifying "Unicorns exist."
.
What are you babbling about, Magus?.
I'm saying, There is no way of falsifying "Unicorns exist."
.
And yet somehow, you don't believe in unicorns. In fact, most people actively disbelieve in unicorns and for good reason. Why is that?
|
When people argue (about anything), most of the good arguments they use are founded in Philosophy. Most reasoned argumentation is founded in Philosophy. I'm going to just focus on Political Philosophy for a moment to keep it clear (since most people, in my experience, can relate to politics). Whether or not a certain policy should be implemented is usually informed by several things. I hesitate to choose a specific instance, lest that sidetrack my point. So choose your favorite political hot potato and think about what informs the various sides of the debate. Ethics is often a consideration (which is wholly in the realm of Philosophy). Economics is often a consideration. That one is often at least partially philosophical. Liberty and Justice are often considerations. The discussion of what they entail belong to Political Philosophy. Sometimes there is a question of whether the political action is within the legitimate scope of government power. That is a philosophical question.
So, if you are asking what Philosophy produces, if you asking where its "truths" lie, here is at least one answer. Any political idea is first a philosophical one. This is certainly not the only place philosophy lurks (in my view it isn't even the most interesting). However, it is one that a layman should be able to appreciate and apprehend quickly.
So, if you are asking what Philosophy produces, if you asking where its "truths" lie, here is at least one answer.
What i see is the exact opposite. People feel their way to a position and then reach for any bit of philosophy that supports that position and reject anything that urges them away from it.
So, if you are asking what Philosophy produces, if you asking where its "truths" lie, here is at least one answer.What i see is the exact opposite. People feel their way to a position and then reach for any bit of philosophy that supports that position and reject anything that urges them away from it.
Sure, that sort of thing happens a lot...because many politicians don't follow or obey the basic tenets of a rational argument. Not in spite of doing so.
Sure, that sort of thing happens a lot...because many politicians don't follow or obey the basic tenets of a rational argument. Not in spite of doing so.So, if you are asking what Philosophy produces, if you asking where its "truths" lie, here is at least one answer.What i see is the exact opposite. People feel their way to a position and then reach for any bit of philosophy that supports that position and reject anything that urges them away from it.
Does anyone follow those tenants?
Does philosophy let them do so any better than anyone else? Or does it just add layers of razzmatazz over a bad idea?
Does anyone follow those tenants?Does philosophy let them do so any better than anyone else? Or does it just add layers of razzmatazz over a bad idea?
1) Sometimes
2) Maybe3) Always
3a) And good ideas too
Sure, that sort of thing happens a lot...because many politicians don't follow or obey the basic tenets of a rational argument. Not in spite of doing so.So, if you are asking what Philosophy produces, if you asking where its "truths" lie, here is at least one answer.What i see is the exact opposite. People feel their way to a position and then reach for any bit of philosophy that supports that position and reject anything that urges them away from it.
Does anyone follow those tenants?
Does philosophy let them do so any better than anyone else? Or does it just add layers of razzmatazz over a bad idea?
What are you talking about?
Philosophy, i.e. rational argumentation, is what let's you say something like:
A- Laws that result in the death of taxpayers should not be enacted.
B- Law X would result in the death of taxpayers.
Conclusion: Lax X should not be enacted.
Hence: IF someone votes for Law X they must disagree with the premises, A or B. Assume that B is empirically proven. Then Senator Y must believe that laws that result in taxpayers deaths are A-OK, since he voted for Law X.
Since I don't believe that to be so, I won't vote for Senator Y.
This is not foolproof, of course, because many people are unable to follow this sort of simple equation. Because rational/critical thought (i.e. philosophy) isn't generally taught in public schools and they are unable to dissect an argument and test its component parts.
Useless babble. You should be working, not thinking.
That is what philosophy is, thinking, doubt, questioning and discovery. It has many terms, areas and fragments, but it comes back to considering everything that is and that which is not, but could be!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What i see is the exact opposite. People feel their way to a position and then reach for any bit of philosophy that supports that position and reject anything that urges them away from it.
My personal view mirrors this sentiment quite a bit. I think most people are irrational first and then rational second (if at all). (btw, this is also my view of scientists, to not stray too far from the original post).
A friend of mine used to say, when most people say they're thinking all they're doing is rearranging their prejudices.
So, let's grant your premise. People are using philosophy and philosophical concepts to motivate their original position (whether or not that position is irrational or rational and whether or not that position is ultimately self-serving). Doesn't providing a rational basis for a position add to the dialogue? Isn't it better to be motivated by reason than by manipulators such as ad hominem or tu quoque? I know that I'd rather hear an issue debated (for instance, do the rich pay too much / too little taxes) on its merits and on a discussion of what is good for people rather than on, "Well most of the population pays no taxes". So even if the philosophy comes in a posteriori isn't it better than having no reason, no rationality, at all?
What are you talking about?
Things like the ontological argument. It seems that all any formalized, systematic philosophy does is add layers of obfuscation to what otherwise should be a pretty simple matter.
Oh it occurs to me that I might be using phrases not in the common language.
ad hominem - personal attacks.
tu quoque - you do it, too.
a posteriori - after the fact.
Ibid., your honor, ibid.
I'd like to hope everyone understands that Grand Magus' logical proof was farcical, and in fact not a logical proof.
I think its a philosophy version of Poe's law.
|
|
Things like the ontological argument. It seems that all any formalized, systematic philosophy does is add layers of obfuscation to what otherwise should be a pretty simple matter.
I'll admit that ontology makes my head hurt. But it is foundational. Even this thread trotted out definitions of philosophy and science. If we're not, at least, talking about the same thing we will not make progress. That's all ontology is trying to do.
.
And the correct answer is:
-- A kind of scientific knowledge --
.
END OF GAME.
.
What was the point of this?
.
You do not need to know. Get back to work.
.
.
What we today call science today was referred to as natural philosophy
in the 15th century. The Aristotelian approach to understanding the
world was to catalog and organize more-or-less passive acts of
observation into taxonomies. This method began to fall out of favor in
the physical sciences in the 15th century, and was dead by the 17th
century. However, because of the greater difficulty of observing the
processes underlying biology and behavior, the life sciences continued
to rely on this approach until well into the 19th century. This is why
the life sciences of the 1800s are replete with taxonomies, detailed
naming conventions, and perceived lines of descent, which are more a
matter of organizing observations than principled experimentation and
model revision.
Applying the scientific method today, we expect to engage in a sequence
of planned steps:
o Formulate hypotheses (often in the form of a question)
o Devise experiments
o Collect data
o Interpret data to evaluate hypotheses
o Revise hypotheses based upon experimental results
This sequence amounts to one cycle of an iterative approach to
acquiring knowledge.
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to think I was a fan of philosophy until I realized that philosophy is often the act of making a matter more complicated than it actually is.
I used to think I was a fan of philosophy until I realized that philosophy is often the act of making a matter more complicated than it actually is.
It is a way to oppress stupid people, and keep them working in physical
labor camps growing food and making shelter, while the intelligentpeople sit around and do nothing but talk about philosophy.
Don't let them fool you -- fight for your right to party !
Stupid people oppress themselves by being stupid.
Even a person with a sub-100 IQ can make up for some of their deficiency by studying and reading.
The problem with philosophy is that all it usually does is ask "Why?" when 99.9% of the time "Why not?" is a good enough answer.
Philosophy gets you laid. You would know this if you weren't a machine.
I do not see how this lead you to think that philosophy = A kind of scientific knowledge
.
Me either.
.
The problem with philosophy is that all it usually does is ask "Why?" when 99.9% of the time "Why not?" is a good enough answer.
.
What happens in the 0.1% ?
.
Sex.
Science is a methodology that is grounded in philosophy. It differs from other philosophical approaches because it includes observation and experiment in it's revision process. This extra bit is why science is the most successful approach to understanding reality.
So you are saying love, art, and ethics aren't real? Perhaps you mean something else?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying love, art, and ethics aren't real? Perhaps you mean something else?Science is a methodology that is grounded in philosophy. It differs from other philosophical approaches because it includes observation and experiment in it's revision process. This extra bit is why science is the most successful approach to understanding reality.
How did you garner that from what I said? Perhaps you mean something else?
So you are saying love, art, and ethics aren't real? Perhaps you mean something else?Science is a methodology that is grounded in philosophy. It differs from other philosophical approaches because it includes observation and experiment in it's revision process. This extra bit is why science is the most successful approach to understanding reality.
How did you garner that from what I said? Perhaps you mean something else?
You said science is the best way of understanding reality. Science tells us nothing about those phenomena. Either science is the best at understanding SOME reality or those thIngs arent real.
Capice?
|
|
So you are saying love, art, and ethics aren't real? Perhaps you mean something else?Science is a methodology that is grounded in philosophy. It differs from other philosophical approaches because it includes observation and experiment in it's revision process. This extra bit is why science is the most successful approach to understanding reality.
How did you garner that from what I said? Perhaps you mean something else?
You said science is the best way of understanding reality. Science tells us nothing about those phenomena. Either science is the best at understanding SOME reality or those thIngs arent real.
Capice?
No capice. Not at all.
Science gives us information on what is knowable in any meaningful and tangible way - the information gathered using science is repeatable by applying the same methodology.
Philosophy applied to love, art, and ethics do not lead to repeatable results when conducted by different philosophers - nor does it strive to. You will not find and overwhelming consensus about the nature of love and art while studying it from different regional and cultural backgrounds (it would be dull if it did). Two honest scientists from different backgrounds will reach the same conclusion if they perform the same experiment identically.
Also, not to nitpick, but science definitely has something to say about love, art, and ethics. The information it has just might not be the deep and meaningful answer you want it to be.