The value or utility of Philosophy

[Ed]

I note that certain posters invoke philosophical arguments to advance positions on various paranormal issues.

The question that I have is is there any particular value to philosophy in the understanding of the paranormal or for anything else for that matter.

Personally, I find such arguments a bit vacuous in that, like discussions with true believers, the proponents seem to have "gotten it" and are just waiting for everyone else. It also appears (could be wrong, I only took one Philo course and would to this day beat hell out of that fat bastard Martin Buber if I ever run into him) that everything "philosophical" is proof against proof, if you follow me. It seems like a sort of self-referential system devoid of any value. To me, at least.

[Chad Noles]

Perhaps you can find an answer in the Philosophy forum.

[Ed]

Perhaps but it pops up here. Sort of applied philosophy.

[Yahweh]

I dont like Philosophy being discussed with the Paranormal. And on the 6th day (of November), Yahweh said "Let Philosophy and Science be SEPERATE!".


(Did anyone ever realize another weird thing about that whole Genesis story? In 7 days, God said about 7 sentences, that's barely a paragraph which took nearly a week to get out. And who was he talking to?)

[Chad Noles]

I've heard it said that Philosophy is what people use to ask the questions to which we don't have a testable mechanism for,or something like that.It was mentioned in the PBS program about string theory.At the present time, we have no method to test string theory.The scientist envolved in it's pursuit aren't really sure if it's a Philosophical or Scientific question.

[T'ai Chi]

I think ideas do matter.

When physics fails, metaphysics I guess is the only thing that can be called upon.

[a_unique_person]

Philosophy is the least scientific of the sciences, but it is the basis for all of them. Kind of like a layered effect. You can't have the 'hard' sciences, without first muddling around for a long time in the 'soft' ones.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont like Philosophy being discussed with the Paranormal. And on the 6th day (of November), Yahweh said "Let Philosophy and Science be SEPERATE!"

Separate

[Ratman_tf]

I don't like it when philosophy is used to obsfucate a discussion.

And I feel a few posters here do just that. Intentionally or unintentionally.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
I note that certain posters invoke philosophical arguments to advance positions on various paranormal issues.

The question that I have is is there any particular value to philosophy in the understanding of the paranormal or for anything else for that matter.

Personally, I find such arguments a bit vacuous in that, like discussions with true believers, the proponents seem to have "gotten it" and are just waiting for everyone else. It also appears (could be wrong, I only took one Philo course and would to this day beat hell out of that fat bastard Martin Buber if I ever run into him) that everything "philosophical" is proof against proof, if you follow me. It seems like a sort of self-referential system devoid of any value. To me, at least.

Our philosophical ideas about the world are absolutely crucial, for they will dictate what we perceive to be the prima facie likelihood of the existence of various paranormal phenomena. If anyone is unable to understand this, then I am being absolutely sincere in stating that you are wasting your time in discussing the paranormal. The philosophical aspects are actually more important and indeed should be more important than any scientific evidence for this alleged phenomena.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The philosophical aspects are actually more important and indeed should be more important than any scientific evidence for this alleged phenomena.


Hmm, that's not a Hoyt nomination, it goes deeper than mere illogic.

So, you are saying that if we drop the brick, it falls on our toes, we're still not in any pain even if it breaks 3 toes and a metatarsal?

Yes, Ian, that's what you're saying. Now justify your position.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The philosophical aspects are actually more important and indeed should be more important than any scientific evidence for this alleged phenomena.

Spoken like someone desperate to cling to a paranormal belief and avoid the refutation before him.

Way to go Ian. You’re a quintessential believer.

Philosophy is of unequivocally no value. It has no ability to generate facts or distinguish fact from fiction. It’s mental masturbation.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN

Philosophy is of unequivocally no value.

Do you think ideas have value?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by TLN

Philosophy is of unequivocally no value. It has no ability to generate facts or distinguish fact from fiction. It’s mental masturbation.

I wouldn't go that far. It has its place. Ethics, for example, is a branch of philosphy that has great practical use. It can't substitute for science in the kind of matters usually discussed here, though.

[jj]

Originally posted by TLN

Philosophy is of unequivocally no value. It has no ability to generate facts or distinguish fact from fiction. It’s mental masturbation.

If you said "philosophy, by itself" I'd be comfortable with that statement, but in fact, philosophy can provide things like ethical frameworks, etc, and they can be tested by application to the real world.

In some real sense, that's what the debate in politics about 'ism's' is all about, they are all at some point political philosophies, and the question I asked is how many of them are actually realistic in terms of known human behaviors.

So, philosophy, in conjunction with other things, has value.

In and of itself, with no confirmation or falsification possible, it's just philosophy, and despite lifegiver/ian's spoutings, can prove or show exactly nothing about the real world.

Questions of "Is there a real world" must needs devolve into insane solipcism in order to argue that there isn't.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I wouldn't go that far. It has its place. Ethics, for example, is a branch of philosphy that has great practical use. It can't substitute for science in the kind of matters usually discussed here, though.

Agreed. In my aggravation over Irritating Ian I've overstated the matter.

It still has no ability to generate facts and therefore I find it of little use outside of interesting conversation.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by TLN


Agreed. In my aggravation over Irritating Ian I've overstated the matter.

It still has no ability to generate facts and therefore I find it of little use outside of interesting conversation.

I agree. Philosophy, by its very nature, is speculative. Ethics is its major role today. And even regarding morality, science impinges (or should impinge) on ethics. The Mapping of the Mind will have important ramifications for crime and punishment. Genetic advances will, too. Medical ethics is a minefield where science, economics, and ethics commingle uneasily.

So, Philosophy has its place. That place is probably in the Religion and Philosophy Forum, mind you :)

Yet belief in an afterlife is so fundamental to Christian theology. And that belief, with others, entails paranormal or supernatural claims. When it comes to testing these claims, philosophy can provide no clear answers.

If Ian wishes to speculate about paranormal claims like the existence of an immortal soul: that's philosophy. If he claims to have evidence of such survival, however, then he has to enter the scientific arena. For Philosophy, especially Ian's immaterialism, has no clear, unequivocal mechanism to distinguish between reality and illusion. That is probably why Berkeley is so appealing to him as, I would guess, a conservative Anglican?? (Apologies to Ian if he is not)

The philosophy of Berkeley represents a highly developed and energetically defended statement of the position that reality consists wholly of minds, the divine Mind and the multiplicity of finite minds that includes all men. Whatever exists does so either because it is a mind or because it is dependent upon a mind; nothing material exists. Berkeley argued that the notion of the material should play no role in one's thinking, for its existence is unverifiable, its postulation unnecessary, and, at bottom, the very notion is self-contradictory. How does Berkeley view the status of tables and chairs, rocks, the Moon, and all of the other apparently material things that everyone accepts as existing? Berkeley agreed that they do indeed exist but only as collections of ideas that exist in the mind of God and that are often caused by God to exist in the minds of men as well.

There are well-known difficulties in Berkeley's view. His account of the nature of tables and other objects cannot be accepted as an account of the meanings of these terms because it is implausible to think that the concept of a divine Mind is somehow part of their meaning. Nor does it seem a plausible scientific theory about such objects because of its ad hoc character and its lack of predictive value. If the notion of God is dropped, however, the philosopher is left with the phenomenalistic theory that such objects are collections of appearances. But phenomenalism also has serious difficulties; in particular, it cannot in the end account for the difference between real objects and illusions because it cannot provide an account of the difference between circumstances in which perceptions are veridical and those in which they are not.

Britannica 2003 DVD


Metaphysical theories must be subject to the test of experience. That metaphysics aspires to give an account of the world as a whole means that each metaphysician claims that his fundamental insight illuminates every department of life. There are many conflicting metaphysical theories: which one is true? Science is mutable and seeks to correct any errors in a progressive fashion. Philosophy,however, was for so long ruled by a dogmatic Theology that it, too, became diffused with claims of inerrant truth. For most of the existence of philosophical thought, the thinkers were constrained by religious beliefs whether they wanted to be or not. It was mortally dangerous to expound philosophical positions that were deemed 'heretical' whether you were Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Galileo, or Thomas Moore. The period of the Enlightenment saw the first real challenges to god-based philosophy, although many were still persecuted for atheistic views. I think Deism was used by many as a convenient compromise. Let's be honest, it is still not popular to be an atheist in much of the world. And it can still be a dangerous position to hold.

What I mean is, so much of the history of Western philosophy was 'biased' toward a theocentric universe because 'god' was imposed on philosophers by the popular attitudes and beliefs of their time. If one is going to be tortured and burned at the stake for denying God and Satan, I reckon this would introduce a very considerable bias away from a humanistic worldview!

So . . .

How does Ian differentiate between reality and hallucination, between fact and illusion? His metaphysics provides no mechanism to do so. Empiricism does, however provide a high degree of veridical evidence. We're back to that old word again.

The trouble is that what Ian, Luci, Clancie, SG and others call 'evidence' is not what skeptics mean by the term.

Perhaps we should tighten up on the semantics and insist on the term 'scientific evidence'. Until then, believers will continue to claim anacdotal and circumstantial evidence for paranormal claims, and the skeptics will say: 'What evidence?', and round the rugged rock again the ragged rascals run (or sometimes they hide:)) It's a BIG rock with plenty of nooks and crannies:)

malc

[CFLarsen]

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that philosophy cannot be "tested" and "proved". It clearly cannot. Heidegger didn't "win" over Plato. David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel, though :)

The question is, what have we learned about ourselves from philosophy? What have we gained? What have we lost?

Let's keep the focus on philosophy, but I just want to compare philosophy with religion here for a second. For millenia, we have had many gods, because we wanted to understand the world around us better. But have we? Are religious people "closer" to God today? Do we understand God better?

Same thing with philosophy: What's the score?

Have we, by virtue of philosophy, learned to be better human beings? Nicer to each other? Perhaps. I agree that ethics is one area where we might have profited by (some) philosophic ideas. But we also have to realize that scientific progress bears a great responsibility for our developed ethics. We now know that we are very closely related to the chimps, and therefore we cannot just treat them the way we would treat e.g. maggots. We know that we can infect other people with diseases, therefore we wash our hands.

We know this, not from philosophy, but from scientific progress.

On this board, we should be able to discuss metaphysics all we like. We should also be aware that the "evidence" we are seeking, lies not in a metaphysical/philosophical explanation, but in verifiable data.

I agree that "evidence" should be stressed as "scientific evidence" here.

[CFLarsen]

malcolmdl,

Could I persuade you to email me at webmaster@skepticreport.com? :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by malcolmdl


I agree. Philosophy, by its very nature, is speculative. Ethics is its major role today. And even regarding morality, science impinges (or should impinge) on ethics. The Mapping of the Mind will have important ramifications for crime and punishment. Genetic advances will, too. Medical ethics is a minefield where science, economics, and ethics commingle uneasily....snip...


Great post.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by malcolmdl

From Britannica 2003 DVD
There are well-known difficulties in Berkeley's view.


Indeed there is. Certainly nothing that you subsequently say though :rolleyes:



His account of the nature of tables and other objects cannot be accepted as an account of the meanings of these terms because it is implausible to think that the concept of a divine Mind is somehow part of their meaning.



Well that's ok then, because it is not part of their meaning. The meaning of something like a table is a family of characteristic qualia. The table, or at least the qualia comprising the table, has its origin in the metamind, but this is a cause of the table, not part of its essence!



Nor does it seem a plausible scientific theory about such objects



It is not a scientific theory, it is a metaphysical hypothesis.


because of its ad hoc character and its lack of predictive value.


Science is actually more consonant with science than materialism. You really are totally clueless as to what you're talking about.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by malcolmdl



If Ian wishes to speculate about paranormal claims like the existence of an immortal soul: that's philosophy. If he claims to have evidence of such survival, however, then he has to enter the scientific arena.



I don't personally have evidence, and as I keep saying one can have evidence without it being scientific evidence.


For Philosophy, especially Ian's immaterialism, has no clear, unequivocal mechanism to distinguish between reality and illusion.



How on earth do you work this out? :rolleyes:




Metaphysical theories must be subject to the test of experience.



Bang goes materialism then and the extinction hypothesis (ceasing to exist when we die).



How does Ian differentiate between reality and hallucination, between fact and illusion?



Not all the qualia making up the putative object is there, or the qualia taken as a whole is inconsistent with what we deem to be a real instance of said object.



The trouble is that what Ian, Luci, Clancie, SG and others call 'evidence' is not what skeptics mean by the term.



Too right, skeptics think it means proof :rolleyes:



Perhaps we should tighten up on the semantics and insist on the term 'scientific evidence'.



Perhaps we shouldn't. I for one refuse to do so. I am not going to alter the English language just to please skeptics.



Until then, believers will continue to claim anacdotal and circumstantial evidence for paranormal claims, and the skeptics will say: 'What evidence?', and round the rugged rock again the ragged rascals run (or sometimes they hide:)) It's a BIG rock with plenty of nooks and crannies:)

malc

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that philosophy cannot be "tested" and "proved". It clearly cannot. Heidegger didn't "win" over Plato. David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel, though :)

The question is, what have we learned about ourselves from philosophy? What have we gained? What have we lost?



What about the whole of science and hence our modern technological civilisation?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Do you think ideas have value?

Not yours.

[thaiboxerken]

It is not a scientific theory, it is a metaphysical hypothesis.


And thus Ian side-steps any attempts to provide evidence for his claims. The dishonesty runs deep within his roots.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

It is not a scientific theory, it is a metaphysical hypothesis.


And thus Ian side-steps any attempts to provide evidence for his claims. The dishonesty runs deep within his roots.

Poll posted in Flame Wars section regarding my ability to post rational and valid arguments. Please vote.
Neither of the above were; however you may once or twice have erred & made a rational post. Could you point one out for me?


hijack=off

Philosophy is the tool scientists should use to determine the useful limits -- if such exist -- of the epistemological priviledge of the scientific method, and to ask if they as humans also deserve that priviledge at all times.

[thaiboxerken]

Neither of the above were; however you may once or twice have erred & made a rational post. Could you point one out for me?

STFU, you stupid troll. The poll is still there, go look and vote.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Neither of the above were; however you may once or twice have erred & made a rational post. Could you point one out for me?

STFU, you stupid troll. The poll is still there, go look and vote.

Must I remind you of the civility rule that operates in these forums?

[hammegk]

Continuing the hijack ...


Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Must I remind you of the civility rule that operates in these forums?

When you are as nutty as a kickboxer, no need to; just kick 'em.



And for my buddy thaiboxerken :

Temper, temper; wouldn't want you to pop a vein or anything. Which post of yours did you say was "rational"?

hijack=off

Nope, nothing to add yet.

[thaiboxerken]

Many posts have been made by me that are rational. You can believe it or not. I've been posting all over.

Try the skepticism threads.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Must I remind you of the civility rule that operates in these forums?

Why, then, are you not following that rule? You have repeatedly thrown mud at other posters (usually those who have shown you wrong).

Stop being a hypocrite, Ian.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Why, then, are you not following that rule? You have repeatedly thrown mud at other posters (usually those who have shown you wrong).

Stop being a hypocrite, Ian.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Not yours.

Someone's diaper needs changing! :D