Can the validity of philosophical ideas be tested?

[jay gw]

first, definitions:

validity

implies a basis of flawless reasoning or of solid grounds
implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority
well-grounded or justifiable

philosophy

a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

Some posters who regularly post in Philosophy give me the impression they believe philosophical ideas are the same as scientific ones.

Every area of science requires that respective ideas be tested for their validity. The ideas are also used to make predictions, whose results are checked against expectations of the results.

But what tests for validity exist for philosophical ideas?

[ImaginalDisc]

No.

P.S. It's grammar time!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6958453fc2c2c79b7.jpg

[TobiasTheViking]

i don't think i get philosophy.

I mostly think philsophical questions are stupid, and irrelevant.

Like, "do everyone see the same colour blue? or do we see a different colour just call it by the same name and no one knows any different?".

I fail to see why it even matters, and i fail to see why one should think about it.

That said, lets see if someone will haze me and make me change my opinion :)

[I less than three logic]

I think philosophy has it uses in the right context. Ethics for example. Ethical philosophy is a good way to rationalize what you think you should or shouldn't do, or what you think is right or wrong; just as long as you're not looking for an objective, absolute view on the subject. Then you have some other types of philosophy, metaphysics for example. Which is about as productive and, I may or may not know this from personal experience, actually less entertaining than constructing a logical argument to convince yourself which hair on your body is your absolute favorite.

[yrreg]

Consider my own, Yrreg's, definition of philosophy:

Philosophy is the continuous and ceaseless search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything by speculative reasoning.

Anyone is free to use that definition of philosophy which I maintain to be a universal all valid definition of philosophy for all humans for all times and climes.

Just in case you are interested, here is also my definition (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2034702&postcount=228) of religion:
Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to the believer.
Anyone is free also to use my definition of religion which I maintain to be the most valid for all humans of all climes and times.


Now back to testing of philosophical ideas.

Can the validity of philosophical ideas be tested?

Yes: outside the mind, with science; inside the mind with universally accepted and employed and propounded laws of thought which are in consonance with science.

Will you ask me what is my definition of science? Here, read and remember and practice it, below:

Science is the continuous and ceaseless search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything by reasoning from observation and experimentation.


Yrreg

[Piscivore]

Anyone is free to use that definition of philosophy which I maintain to be a universal all valid definition of philosophy for all humans for all times and climes.

Anyone is free also to use my definition of religion which I maintain to be the most valid for all humans of all climes and times.

Thanks anyway, but I think I'll stick to the ones everyone else uses.

Unless you have some other definition of "common language" that you'd like to share.

[drkitten]

Some posters who regularly post in Philosophy give me the impression they believe philosophical ideas are the same as scientific ones.

Every area of science requires that respective ideas be tested for their validity. The ideas are also used to make predictions, whose results are checked against expectations of the results.

But what tests for validity exist for philosophical ideas?

Well, since scientific ideas are a subset of philosophical ones, any scientific test is inherently a test of the underlyling philosophy.

Similarly, since (properly done) philosophy is also bound by scientific findings and theories, any new scientific discovery implicitly creates new constraints -- and new philosophical developments can suggest new areas of inquiry for science.

A number of years ago, for example, one of the key questions in the philosophy of self concerned the nature of the brain and how it related to the idea of self-hood. In particular, a key talking point was the idea of being able to remove someone's brain and divide it into two hemispheres, thereby duplicating the person. This is no longer a valid talking point, since we know that the two hemispheres are not interchangeable nor redundant. I could go further back and look at advances in neuroanatomy and our beliefs about "rationality" as a property of the brain vs. the soul.

From the other side, questions about things like qualia -- the most famous is Nagel's "What is is like to be a bat?" -- have driven a lot of work in cognitive science, to the point that now rather serious scientists like Dawkins will suggest that bats, literally, hear in colour.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg [http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2038629#post2038629]

Anyone is free to use that definition of philosophy which I maintain to be a universal all valid definition of philosophy for all humans for all times and climes.

Anyone is free also to use my definition of religion which I maintain to be the most valid for all humans of all climes and times.
Thanks anyway, but I think I'll stick to the ones everyone else uses.

Unless you have some other definition of "common language" that you'd like to share.

I like very much to read your own definitions of philosophy, religion, and science, you could teach me something I like to know I have not known yet, but please in your own words, not by referring me to other peoples' writings.


Yrreg

[drkitten]

please in your own words, not by referring me to other peoples' writings.


Why?

The reason to study philosophy is partly because there are many people out there who are smarter than I am, who have thought more deeply about the problem than I have, and who have therefore come up with a better solution than I would have.

The reason to use dictionaries is partly because there are many people out there who are smarter than I am, who have thought more deeply about words and conceptsthan I have, and who have therefore come up with a better definition than I would have.

Inventing your own meaning for words like "philosophy," iinstead of reading what others have to say about it, is as self-centered and as pointless as is thinking up philosphical solutions to problems instead of reading what other people have already said about them.

[yrreg]

Well, since scientific ideas are a subset of philosophical ones, any scientific test is inherently a test of the underlyling philosophy.

Similarly, since (properly done) philosophy is also bound by scientific findings and theories, any new scientific discovery implicitly creates new constraints -- and new philosophical developments can suggest new areas of inquiry for science.

A number of years ago, for example, one of the key questions in the philosophy of self concerned the nature of the brain and how it related to the idea of self-hood. In particular, a key talking point was the idea of being able to remove someone's brain and divide it into two hemispheres, thereby duplicating the person. This is no longer a valid talking point, since we know that the two hemispheres are not interchangeable nor redundant. I could go further back and look at advances in neuroanatomy and our beliefs about "rationality" as a property of the brain vs. the soul.

From the other side, questions about things like qualia -- the most famous is Nagel's "What is is like to be a bat?" -- have driven a lot of work in cognitive science, to the point that now rather serious scientists like Dawkins will suggest that bats, literally, hear in colour.

Thanks for a very instructive post, I have learned from you.

Please also tell me, what do you think about the non-self concept of Buddhists?

I thought that they were being concerned with attitude, namely, that we should not be so obsessed with this earthly vessel, and all that; but horror of horrors, they are literal, they mean the self does not exist; and they reason thus, because the self is not permanent, nothing is permanent (understand the word permanent as not changeable, instead of permanent as lasting long time -- that is also one peculiarity of Buddhist talk, they like to say something negative by using positive words and then denying the positive thoughts, for example just like in their use of permanence, permanent, etc., instead of saying all things are changeable they prefer to say things are not permanent...)

Anyway, dear teacher, and I call you a teacher at least to myself, please tell me what you think of the non-self of the Buddhists.

I really sincerely want to learn from you, and also what you think of their way of arriving at non-self by reasoning from the changeability of everything which they as I said start from permanence of things and then negating it by understanding not-permanent as changeable.

I am here for the learning, and I can see in you one person I can learn about things which I can use for my idea of life and its meaning.


Yrreg

[Piscivore]

I like very much to read your own definitions of philosophy, religion, and science, you could teach me something I like to know I have not known yet, but please in your own words, not by referring me to other peoples' writings.


Yrreg

What Dr. K said.

[yrreg]

What Dr. K said.

I am asking you to give me your definitions of philosophy, religion, and science, in your own words, limiting yourself to fifty words or less.

I fear I am correct, you do not have ideas which you can express in your own words and briefly.

I am thinking very seriously of starting a thread about posts here which are not educational, i.e., instructive to members and guests here, and posts which are educational, according to of course my own criteria of educational; for this forum is a daughter webpage of the James Randi Educational Foundation website.


Again, give me in your own words in less than fifty or less words, what your definitions of philosophy, religion, and science are.

Frankly speaking, I am very disappointed with members here who do nothing but obstruct the educational raison d'etre of this forum.


Yrreg

[Piscivore]

I am asking you to give me your definitions of philosophy, religion, and science, in your own words, limiting yourself to fifty words or less.

I fear I am correct, you do not have ideas which you can express in your own words and briefly.

It was a joke, son.

I think the lack of a sense of humour is one of the reasons you don't get Buddhism.

I told you already that my definitions are the ones in the dictionary. Dr. K said very much the same as I would about why. I don't feel like I need to reinvent that wheel to appease whatever prejudice you have.

[Ryokan]

Again, give me in your own words in less than fifty or less words, what your definitions of philosophy, religion, and science are.

Isn't it better to use the standard definitions, instead of making up our own?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg
I am asking you to give me your definitions of philosophy, religion, and science, in your own words, limiting yourself to fifty words or less.

I fear I am correct, you do not have ideas which you can express in your own words and briefly.


It was a joke, son.

I think the lack of a sense of humour is one of the reasons you don't get Buddhism.

I told you already that my definitions are the ones in the dictionary. Dr. K said very much the same as I would about why. I don't feel like I need to reinvent that wheel to appease whatever prejudice you have.

Isn't it better to use the standard definitions, instead of making up our own?


Well, I am smiling but still sad, disappointed, that every time I ask people to put down the ideas they have and which they bring up, put them down in their own words and in great economy of words, they are reluctant or resistant, or they refuse, or they make excuses, or they again refer me to the writings of other people.

You see, great scientists and thinkers who have gone into the ideas we are always talking about here, like self, like what is philosophy, science, and religion, what are arts, they mostly not only master their disciplines of specialization and can write in peers-reviews journals, but they can also use their own words to explain briefly what their ideas are all about and the ideas of previous great thinkers, discoverers, inventors, scientists, artists, are all about, in their own words and in great economy of words, and people who are not great thinkers can understand them.

When you two have time to do some serious thinking, tell me in your own words, in fifty words or less, your own definitions of philosophy, and religion, and science; then we can discuss how good your definitions are in the way of telling people what things are, so that they can recognize those things when they see them or think of them.

You see, I have this attitude that people who really know something can always use their own words to explain it, even with body language, by first bringing forth its important points and then describing them with more simple terms even body language.

Take this example of a wedding banquet, the kid brother of the beautiful bride is a mute-dumb moron, sad to say but it happens. He told me by body language with his fingers what his sister is going into with marriage, the physical aspect that is, making a circle with the thumb and index finger of one hand and the index finger of the other hand thrusting in and out of the circle.

When people know precisely what a thing is then they can locate its most important ingredients and say them in few simple words even with body language.

So, that moron mute and dumb brother of the bride told me realistically that his sister will now make love with that guy for a groom on full approval of the family and the community.


I am studying Buddhism and the most essential ingredient in Buddhism I have so far found is its almost totally and exclusively drive of flight from life and the world, that is why they Buddhists take vows of refuge, in the Buddha, in the Dharma, in the Sangha; no, not setting out to build and expand and reinforce life and the world, but it's all about flight, escape, fleeing from, even and most of all from themselves in the obsession with the non-self.


Don't forget, I am waiting for your very own definitions of philosophy, religion, science, in your own words, and in fifty or less words.


Yrreg

[Piscivore]

Well, I am smiling but still sad, disappointed, that every time I ask people to put down the ideas they have and which they bring up,

You didn't ask about my ideas, you asked for my definitions.

in great economy of words,

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You see, great scientists and thinkers who have gone into the ideas we are always talking about here, like self, like what is philosophy, science, and religion, what are arts, they mostly not only master their disciplines of specialization and can write in peers-reviews journals, but they can also use their own words to explain briefly what their ideas are all about and the ideas of previous great thinkers, discoverers, inventors, scientists, artists, are all about, in their own words and in great economy of words, and people who are not great thinkers can understand them.

Yes. And they can also let the "previous great thinkers, discoverers, inventors, scientists, [and] artists" speak for themselves, in their own words. What is wrong with that?

When you two have time to do some serious thinking, tell me in your own words, in fifty words or less, your own definitions of philosophy, and religion, and science; then we can discuss how good your definitions are in the way of telling people what things are, so that they can recognize those things when they see them or think of them.

Now you are asking for my definitions again. I use the definitions everyone else but you has agreed on, because if I don't, then somewhere during the "discussion" it is going to wrong because I'm talking about something different than what my correspondent thinks we are discussing. This is called "equivocation", and you've run afoul of it more than once.

You don't get to change these concepts by inventing your own definitions of them. You just end up sounding like you don't understand the thing you are trying to discuss. So for the last time, I use, will continue to use, and heartily agree with the standard dictionary definitions of these words.

If there is something else you want to learn from me, then ask a different question.

You see, I have this attitude that people who really know something can always use their own words to explain it, even with body language, by first bringing forth its important points and then describing them with more simple terms even body language.

The rub is, someone can only think they've understood something, and still use their own words to explain it. This is, in fact a one way to find out if they do.

But something that happens when you do this- especially if you simplify- is that you lose resolution. It's like summing up the entire bible by saying the only important point is the crucifixion.

Take this example of a wedding banquet, the kid brother of the beautiful bride is a mute-dumb moron, sad to say but it happens. He told me by body language with his fingers what his sister is going into with marriage, the physical aspect that is, making a circle with the thumb and index finger of one hand and the index finger of the other hand thrusting in and out of the circle.

When people know precisely what a thing is then they can locate its most important ingredients and say them in few simple words even with body language.

So, that moron mute and dumb brother of the bride told me realistically that his sister will now make love with that guy for a groom on full approval of the family and the community.

What has that to do with us? Body language doesn't come across in text.

I am studying Buddhism and the most essential ingredient in Buddhism I have so far found is its almost totally and exclusively drive of flight from life and the world, that is why they Buddhists take vows of refuge, in the Buddha, in the Dharma, in the Sangha; no, not setting out to build and expand and reinforce life and the world, but it's all about flight, escape, fleeing from, even and most of all from themselves in the obsession with the non-self.

Then you've misunderstood, and you've excessively simplified a very complex philosophy into something it isn't. Which you've been told over and over.

To use your example, you've gone to one wedding banquet and determined that all kid brothers of all beautiful brides are mute-dumb morons.

Don't forget, I am waiting for your very own definitions of philosophy, religion, science, in your own words, and in fifty or less words.
You have my final answer.

[Loss Leader]

But what tests for validity exist for philosophical ideas?

Having spent time on this board with both Lightcreatedlife and Lifegazer, I think there are two very easy tests that must be applied to any proposed philosophy. First, is it consistent with our understanding of the universe? If not, it's simply worthless. Arguing that there is no objective reality (not whether we can know it, but that it does not exist) or that the universe could just be one electron in an atom of hydrogen in another universe or something is a fruitless task. If it cannot happen or cannot be demonstrated ever to be the case, there is no value to it.

Second, any philosophical argument should be logical. That means that its conclusions should follow necessarily from its premises. There are males and females, therefore light is sentient and is trying to create a perfect expression of itself - well, there's just no way to get at the conclusion since the premise has nothing to do with it. Only a logical argument should be admitted for discussion.

IMHO.

[jay gw]

inside the mind with universally accepted and employed and propounded laws of thought which are in consonance with science.


What laws of thought are universally accepted?

[Dancing David]

Philosophy led to the sciences but has some prectioners who like to engage in semantic arguments like "the immaterial must exist because a physical mind could not think about thought', and these practioners like to hide behind concepts like qualia, as though they are not biologicaly based.