And the great thing about philosophy is that it led to developing and refining the scientific method. After a lot of other, much less functional approaches admittedly.
So the only good thing philosophy ever did was... stop being philosophy?
Philosophy makes refinements in how philosophy understands science. Thats different than changing the way that science works.
Put it this way, science can tell you that what we do is going to make life miserable on this planet for our descendants 2 centuries removed.
Philosophy is where you put the question on whether or not you give a damm enough to do something about it.
But does it give you anything other than someone's opinion on the matter?
Both the question you just asked, and this one, are philosophical ones.
What would make a philosophers answers better than mine? The actual content, not the presentation.
Better is not the issue. Philsophy however encompasses more than just material science. One might call it the "science" of thinking itself. Science the way you think of it, is essentially a narrow subset of philosophy.
Both the question you just asked, and this one, are philosophical ones.
What would make a philosophers answers better than mine? The actual content, not the presentation.
They tried that. Sci corp isn't returning their phone calls.
And yes, that is the issue. If formal, systematic philosophy doesn't actually DO anything then there's no point to it.
Save that it does. It lets us use argument, soul searching, and logic to build all the things that matter, such as ethics, morality, law,... all those intangibles that we call "civilization".
and then throws it out the window the second its to someone's advantage to do something.
The same way an individual can throw out scientific method and try to hawk cold-fusion?
Save that it does. It lets us use argument, soul searching, and logic to build all the things that matter, such as ethics, morality, law,... all those intangibles that we call "civilization".
and then throws it out the window the second its to someone's advantage to do something.
You can try it but then you're objectively wrong. Your idea goes in the trash can because it doesn't match what happens.
That process doesn't happen for morality ethics law government etc.
If you're looking for a follow-up to Popper, the biggest splash was made by Thomas Kuhn, who coined the term 'paradigm shift'.
While greatly influential, Kuhn's work was built upon (or demolished) by many.
Imre Lakatos and Larry Laudan are leading figures in the 'you can have a higher universal standard' camp.
Barry Barnes and Bruno LaTour are leading figures in the 'you can have a higher personal standard, but so can others' camp.
Personally, I'm with Lakatos and the idea of research programs.
And yes, that is the issue. If formal, systematic philosophy doesn't actually DO anything then there's no point to it.
Analytic philosophy is quite good at exposing errors in thinking. I find that worthwhile.
Yes it does... but the process is subtle. We don't consider women and children as sellable property in more areas of the world. The Bill of Rights was a mastercraft of ethics and governnance.I am not going to argue back and forth on the merits of either until you set some goalposts. You don't seem to find a value in philosophy or the study of thought. (and no I'm not talking Psi Corp telepathy, I'm talking about the process of Mind, which I assume you have one.) Set your goal posts and tell me what you expect of philosophy to consider it "worthwhile".
DO something. Get a substantially different answer the same way a scientist discovers the secrets of reality.
What do you mean by "do something"? People get different answers all the time, are you looking to make a value judgement on the quality of the answer?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean by "do something"? People get different answers all the time, are you looking to make a value judgement on the quality of the answer?
He literally means, "use philosophy to produce the objective best government/system of ethics/diagram of epistemology/etc"
He simultaneously doesn't understand that (1) systems dependent on groups of humans are alway imperfect, and (2) science doesn't work that way either.
What do you mean by "do something"? People get different answers all the time, are you looking to make a value judgement on the quality of the answer?He literally means, "use philosophy to produce the objective best government/system of ethics/diagram of epistemology/etc"
He simultaneously doesn't understand that (1) systems dependent on groups of humans are alway imperfect, and (2) science doesn't work that way either.
I guess my question would be: For Whom?
Or are you making the case that culture, history, economics, etc. don't matter, and there exists an ideal form of, say, government?
By that definition then, Albert Einstein and any other theorectical physicist, never "DID" anything in their entire careers. Or for that matter, any pure mathematician.
Not at all. Einsteins discovered things about reality and his findings have been verified out the wazoo. Calculus was neccesary to explain the motion of heavenly bodies.
What do you mean by "do something"? People get different answers all the time, are you looking to make a value judgement on the quality of the answer?He literally means, "use philosophy to produce the objective best government/system of ethics/diagram of epistemology/etc"
He simultaneously doesn't understand that (1) systems dependent on groups of humans are alway imperfect, and (2) science doesn't work that way either.
I guess my question would be: For Whom?
Or are you making the case that culture, history, economics, etc. don't matter, and there exists an ideal form of, say, government?
Are you asking me this or BigNorseWolf?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about democracy? From its roots in Athens, to the idea complex that describes it today, and the concepts it is linked to such as rule of law, transparency, individual rights and freedoms, and so on and so forth, it has been the result of people sitting down and thinking really hard about governance. In particular the American style of it was very directly the result of such a process. Or is that something that doesn't have to do with philosophy?
Actually, he didn't discover a single thing. What he did was construct a theorectical framework, work out the math with the help of Lorentz and published a set of equations that described a model that others would prove.
Prove with verifiable observable experiments that could have thrown his ideas out if the universe worked a different way. THATS the difference between science and philosophy. Einstein doesn't have to be the one tooling around darkest africa with a telescope pointed up trying to catch an eclipse and tipping the local shamans to pray for sunny weather as long as SOMEONE gets their but down there to do it. The process is what matters, not the person.
Observation--- hypothesis--- test observation hypothesis test. Talk with
the universe instead of at it.
His Nobel was not for relativity, or e=mcSquared but for the photoelectric effect.
aaand?
What about democracy? From its roots in Athens, to the idea complex that describes it today, and the concepts it is linked to such as rule of law, transparency, individual rights and freedoms, and so on and so forth, it has been the result of people sitting down and thinking really hard about governance. In particular the American style of it was very directly the result of such a process. Or is that something that doesn't have to do with philosophy?
This would work if philosophy only supported democracy. But philosophy has no means of picking between democracy, enlightened dictatorship by philosopher kings, not so enlightened dictatorship of Machiavelli, etc
Well, not quite. Time and time again, democracy has been proven to be more resilient, provide for better quality of life for citizens, reduce wars more than any alternative. Certainly, political science is iffy, but as far as we know, it works WELL, even scientifically. I say again, this has been a matter of drawing stuff up on paper and deliberate thinking. Or, as you would call it: philosophy. The results bear out scientifically.
That would be letting reality pick between the alternatives.
But this alternative exists only because someone sat down and thought it up.
How do you know that the scientific method, competently applied, produces results that are helpful for understanding the world? How do you separate good information from bad? Unless you rely upon divine revelation, you employ some form of logic. What is logic, if not a subset (and development from) philosophy?
If you speak upon the merits of science, you do so from one of two approaches. Either you defend it from a place of faith, or from a place of reason. Faith lacks understanding, while the understanding of reason comes from philosophy.
How do you know that the scientific method, competently applied, produces results that are helpful for understanding the world?
Because you can ask me that question.
How do you know that the scientific method, competently applied, produces results that are helpful for understanding the world?Because you can ask me that question.
An answer that reveals more than you likely realise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you know that the scientific method, competently applied, produces results that are helpful for understanding the world?Because you can ask me that question.
Which proves nothing (and is awesomely philosophical). Science is OFTEN convinced that the current science is correct science. Until a different or better method comes along and disproves the current model. This literally happens all the time. "Correct" peer-reviewed, vetted, and practiced science is PROVEN wrong every single day.
As a practitioner of sciences, I understand this in my work. I know that I am operating under assumptions and that (at least some of) those assumptions will be challenged and overthrown at some point. It is actually very similar to espostimological philosophy of the enlightenment. People did work on the topic. New people took that work and refined the logic, demonstrated the flaws and improved the product. Science works exactly like that. And if you bother to actually ask an actual scientific practicitioner, they will tell you that science isn't about "truth" or "correct answers," but only about working with the best available data.
Fact is that the history of Philosophy is mainly plagued with misunderstandings, confusions, empty words and failed efforts.
You could replace "Philosophy" with "human history" in that sentence, or virtually any topic ever.
An answer that reveals more than you likely realise.How do you know that the scientific method, competently applied, produces results that are helpful for understanding the world?Because you can ask me that question.
Or less.
Nonsensical systems that don't adhere to reality can't produce technological marvels like the ones we're using to have this conversation.
An answer that reveals more than you likely realise.How do you know that the scientific method, competently applied, produces results that are helpful for understanding the world?Because you can ask me that question.Or less.
Nonsensical systems that don't adhere to reality can't produce technological marvels like the ones we're using to have this conversation.
How lucky then that philosophy not only adheres to reality, but indeed was the first organized effort to define it.
How lucky then that philosophy not only adheres to reality but indeed was the first organized effort to define it.
I don't think it does and I know it doesn't succeed.
I don't think it does and I know it doesn't succeed.
How lucky then that philosophy not only adheres to reality but indeed was the first organized effort to define it.
Doesn't that just mean that when philosophy does adhere to reality and (granted, long term) lead to technological marvels, you simply reclassify it?
Doesn't that just mean that when philosophy does adhere to reality and (granted, long term) lead to technological marvels, you simply reclassify it?
What long term? What technological marvels did philosophy lead to?
Philosophy can't grock why science works. It tries to put itself at the forfront instead of the evidence and that doesn't work.
Philosophy IS why science works. All of the disciplines that separate true science from quackery or theocratic domination, are philosophic ones.
Experiments are why science works. Experiments are effectively giving up on philosophy. If philosophy didn't work you wouldn't need to experiment to test your ideas: anything that made sense to you would be right.
We see where that gets us. Philosophy can't discover anything and can't resolve outstanding arguments that have existed for centuries. Meanwhile stephen hawking and kip thorne can settle a bet in their careers because there's an arbiter other than the person involved.
Bad science is disproved. Good science is improved upon. Philosophy just goes in and out of style, like hats.
