JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 25th November 2012, 10:55 AM   #81
Atwill
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Examples please.
Well, any logical axiom, like the law of non-contradiction, or any rule of inference.


Originally Posted by tsig
So they're not equal or similar but they're all the same thing, philosophy? There's a bit of a contradiction there.
No, there isn't. I said, after you responded to me as if I had equated them in all regards, that I hadn't actually done so. They're all philosophy, but they're not all the same. That's all I've said and there's no contradiction there whatsoever.

Quote:
These all inclusive claims that "it's all philosophy" become tiring and repetitive
Sucks, but the reason why I'm making that claim is because it's true, whether you find it tiring or not. If you want to argue against the claim, instead of just lamenting its repetitiveness, please do so.

Quote:
"You can't even argue with us without using philosophy
Well, you can't. You can't construct a logical argument without employing logic.

Quote:
and since we're philosophers we automatically win the argument".
Come on, now. No one's said this, nor does it follow from the "It's all philosophy" claim.
Atwill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 10:56 AM   #82
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Fred Hoyle's objections to the Big Bang were philosophical. Far better if he'd followed the science.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 10:57 AM   #83
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Atwill View Post
Well, any logical axiom, like the law of non-contradiction, or any rule of inference.


You said scientific axioms. Did you have any examples in mind?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:01 AM   #84
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 578
He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth.---GOETHE
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:02 AM   #85
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,018
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth.---GOETHE
"I love beer!" Homer Simpson
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:03 AM   #86
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Atwill View Post

Sucks, but the reason why I'm making that claim is because it's true, whether you find it tiring or not. If you want to argue against the claim, instead of just lamenting its repetitiveness, please do so.

Your claim is lacking in proof, and one cannot argue against a claim, only against the proof of the claim. Do you have any?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:04 AM   #87
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,530
Originally Posted by Atwill View Post
Well, any logical axiom, like the law of non-contradiction, or any rule of inference.



No, there isn't. I said, after you responded to me as if I had equated them in all regards, that I hadn't actually done so. They're all philosophy, but they're not all the same. That's all I've said and there's no contradiction there whatsoever.


Sucks, but the reason why I'm making that claim is because it's true, whether you find it tiring or not. If you want to argue against the claim, instead of just lamenting its repetitiveness, please do so.


Well, you can't. You can't construct a logical argument without employing logic.


Come on, now. No one's said this, nor does it follow from the "It's all philosophy" claim.
Assertion does not equal proof. You are aware that the burden of proof is on the claimant?


If it's all philosophy then who could argue it but philosophers?

Computer programmers tend to think that life's like a big computer, Electrical engineers think it's all electricity and philosophers think it's all philosophy.

Hammer/nail
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:05 AM   #88
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth.---GOETHE
''He who knows everything that took place during the last three thousand years should be on the stage''-Dafydd
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:11 AM   #89
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 10,536
I have joked that philosophy is what happens when very intelligent people have too much time on their hands....
We had a fairly active atheism "group" on Facebook (before it was abruptly removed)that had some pretty good discussions and debates.
One participant was obviously newly-enrolled in philosophy classes, and his arguments got more and more obtuse as weeks went on... We enjoined him to stop using jargon and write in plain English as none of the other participants were studying... But he wouldn't quit and eventually went off in a huff, evidently to frequent a philosophy-oriented board.

I have found a tendency in philosophical writing to become unnecessarily obtuse. That's fine if you're speaking to a group of similarly-trained scholars, but not if you're trying to convey concepts to folks outside that heady group.
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:37 AM   #90
Atwill
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
You said scientific axioms. Did you have any examples in mind?
I do consider the ones I mentioned to be axioms of science. Are you asking for examples of axioms that are *exclusive* to science? That'd be difficult for me, I guess, considering the universality of many of them, but the assumption of the reliability of deduction and empirical evidence come to mind.

Originally Posted by tsig
Assertion does not equal proof. You are aware that the burden of proof is on the claimant?
I don't really know what kind of proof I could give you, other than that (unlike your programmer and engineer examples) philosophy includes science, logic, etc., by definition. Philosophy is simply the intellectual examination of concepts.

Now, before you snark, keep in mind that I've already supposed that my understanding of philosophy might be too broad in my very first post in this thread. No one's provided an alternative definition so far, though.

Quote:
If it's all philosophy then who could argue it but philosophers?
Total non-sequitur. You can argue women's issues without being a woman. You can argue science without being a scientist. You can argue animal welfare without being an animal (owner). No one has made the claim that "philosophy" is both, the basis of everything *and* some sort of exclusive club for professionals. If this is what you got from my posts... well, it was definitely not what I was trying to get across.
Atwill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:44 AM   #91
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
You simply cannot understand ..... science without knowing the philosophical currents of whatever era you are studying.


Does that mean you are under the impression either that scientists like Stephen Hawking cannot possibly understand their own publications, or else that they have all studied formal university courses in academic philosophy?

How many physicists, chemists or biologists do you actually know? How many of those have told you that their experiments and theories rely on Kant, Hume or Wittgenstein? Because amongst the several hundred research physicists and chemists that I've met, I never met anyone who even bothered to mention philosophy of that sort. Afaik, few if any of them knew the first thing about any philosophical claims.

I suspect it’s very rare for any modern day scientists & mathematicians ever to give any thought at all to what has been written by any philosophers. In my own 20 years of research I never even heard of any named philosophers. And I never met any colleagues who ever popped over to the philosophy dept for anything.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:03 PM   #92
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Atwill View Post
I do consider the ones I mentioned to be axioms of science. Are you asking for examples of axioms that are *exclusive* to science? That'd be difficult for me, I guess, considering the universality of many of them, but the assumption of the reliability of deduction and empirical evidence come to mind.


Many are universal but you are unable to provide one example? The highlighted part is simply common sense yet again.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:07 PM   #93
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Which philosopher or philosophers did Micheal Faraday read at university?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:13 PM   #94
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,556
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Which philosopher or philosophers did Micheal Faraday read at university?
I don't understand the implication. Are you saying that physicists are not well educated outside of their own disciplines?

I suppose that could be so. My plumber probably knows little about horticulture. I don't get anything useful out of the lack of reliance of physics on philosophy. What's rather more interesting is how much of philosophy deals with other disciplines like mathematics and physics. But it's what you'd expect in a field that encompasses rather more than physics alone. It's probably a good thing that physicists don't try to take on too much -- they get to specialize.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:14 PM   #95
Atwill
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Many are universal but you are unable to provide one example?
I've already given four, actually. You've simply dismissed them based on nothing.

Quote:
The highlighted part is simply common sense yet again.
No, the highlighted part is indeed an axiom of science. It's a fundamental premise whose validity has to be assumed, as it cannot be demonstrated.
Atwill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:16 PM   #96
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I don't understand the implication. Are you saying that physicists are not well educated outside of their own disciplines?
No, the discoveries of Micheal Faraday had noting to do with philosophy, that is the point. Let me try again. Which philosophers needed to have existed in order for Faraday to make his discoveries?

Last edited by dafydd; 25th November 2012 at 12:18 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:19 PM   #97
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Atwill View Post
I've already given four, actually. You've simply dismissed them based on nothing.
Which four would these be? Real examples, not vague generalities please.

Last edited by dafydd; 25th November 2012 at 12:22 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:29 PM   #98
Atwill
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Your posts are perilously close to the nothing of philosophical waffle. Which four would these be?
What's wrong with you? You know them. You've already quoted, highlighted and responded to them.
Quote:
any logical axiom, like the law of non-contradiction, or any rule of inference.
---
the assumption of the reliability of deduction and empirical evidence
You haven't argued why any of those are not axioms of science. You just keep insisting that they're not.

:edit:
Quote:
Real examples, not vague generalities please.
I don't consider the examples I gave you to be vague. The assumption that deduction is valid is a very concrete, very specific and very necessary axiom of science.

Last edited by Atwill; 25th November 2012 at 12:32 PM.
Atwill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:30 PM   #99
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Atwill View Post
You haven't argued why any of those are not axioms of science. You just keep insisting that they're not.
You insist that they are without providing any proof.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:43 PM   #100
Atwill
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
You insist that they are without providing any proof.
Originally Posted by Atwill
[It's] an axiom of science. It's a fundamental premise whose validity has to be assumed, as it cannot be demonstrated.
What more proof do you want, exactly? Scientific reasoning requires the assumption that deduction is reliable. This assumption is axiomatic. If you disagree with any of this, then I'd appreciate if you explained to me why, because I honestly don't understand you anymore. Are you saying that reliance on deduction is *not* a scientific axiom, or that this axiom is simply not philosophical? Or both?
Atwill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:57 PM   #101
TeapotCavalry
Muse
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
You insist that they are without providing any proof.
Don't mean to be rude, but have you as much as wikied any of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...ific_reasoning

This is pretty basic stuff Atwill is saying. Scientists don't need to know it, but this is what science is based on. Might be common sense, but the point is to identify what axioms they are using.

As for the OP, what I detest is when people who self-identify as skeptics claim philosophy to be practically worthless. It is vastly ironic, but also a bit sad.
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
TeapotCavalry is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:57 PM   #102
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,556
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
No, the discoveries of Micheal Faraday had noting to do with philosophy, that is the point. Let me try again. Which philosophers needed to have existed in order for Faraday to make his discoveries?
I can't think of one. But again, the same thing works as well if I ask which physicist had to exist for me to raise sheep. Physics isn't derived from philosophy (since, I believe we have excluded the early blending of "natural philosopher").

Isn't physics just an attempt to marry mathematics with reality and collect facts about the world? That's hardly captures philosophy at all. Sure, some philosophers critique and expound on science. Here's an example of a paper addressing problems in confirmation theory: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8544...nfirmation.pdf

In that instance, we have a philosopher trying to clarify how a scientific theory can be confirmed and what it means to be confirmed in the first place.

Sometimes physicists also dip into philosophy, as when they argue about different models with equivalent evidences. They puzzle about how to interpret results from quantum theory (the famous Copenhagen interpretation vs other ideas) or they wonder if symmetry is a necessary principle or exactly how cause and effect works. The meaning of time is another subject that can often have physicists waxing, if not philosophic, at least poetic. Here's an example of the marriage: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?inde...rds=0521664454

But I am not a physicist. We should ask one directly.
James Lloyd wrote an interesting article about it for Scientific American: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...tell-the-tale/
Quote:
Given that science and philosophy are so intertwined, I sometimes wonder why I was skeptical about philosophy. Maybe I bought into the cliché of philosophers as aloof types who pontificate about the nature of a chair. Maybe I was just put off by all the long words.
What we have in this thread seems to be a battle of caricatures, rather than anything to do with how physics or philosophy is actually practiced.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 01:09 PM   #103
TeapotCavalry
Muse
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What we have in this thread seems to be a battle of caricatures, rather than anything to do with how physics or philosophy is actually practiced.
Indeed so!
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
TeapotCavalry is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 01:20 PM   #104
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,556
Making philosophy more palatable:
(Some swearing, maybe NSFW)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


There is a nice series of these. I think my favorite is Nietzsche.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 01:43 PM   #105
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What we have in this thread seems to be a battle of caricatures, rather than anything to do with how physics or philosophy is actually practiced.
I am reminded of Lawrence Krauss' attack on "moronic philosophers" and the resulting kerfuffle.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 25th November 2012 at 02:05 PM.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 01:45 PM   #106
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,530
delete

Last edited by tsig; 25th November 2012 at 01:46 PM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 01:49 PM   #107
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,530
Originally Posted by Atwill View Post
What more proof do you want, exactly? Scientific reasoning requires the assumption that deduction is reliable. This assumption is axiomatic. If you disagree with any of this, then I'd appreciate if you explained to me why, because I honestly don't understand you anymore. Are you saying that reliance on deduction is *not* a scientific axiom, or that this axiom is simply not philosophical? Or both?
Scientific reasoning is based on experiments and facts, not assumptions. You seem to be implying that without philosophy gravity wouldn't work.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 01:51 PM   #108
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,018
Hyper-loquacity. One of the seven warning signs.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 03:12 PM   #109
Kevin_Lowe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 11,407
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
I have joked that philosophy is what happens when very intelligent people have too much time on their hands....
We had a fairly active atheism "group" on Facebook (before it was abruptly removed)that had some pretty good discussions and debates.
One participant was obviously newly-enrolled in philosophy classes, and his arguments got more and more obtuse as weeks went on... We enjoined him to stop using jargon and write in plain English as none of the other participants were studying... But he wouldn't quit and eventually went off in a huff, evidently to frequent a philosophy-oriented board.

I have found a tendency in philosophical writing to become unnecessarily obtuse. That's fine if you're speaking to a group of similarly-trained scholars, but not if you're trying to convey concepts to folks outside that heady group.
Does there seem to be something a little... funny, perhaps... about judging an area of academic study based on the behaviour of one person who newly enrolled in a class?

I mean, do you normally do that? Do you judge karate based on knowing one yellow belt, or art based on knowing someone who took one watercolour class, or economics based on knowing someone who read a blog about it, or a genre of writing based on reading one short story?
__________________
Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists.
-- Alfred Mander
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 03:30 PM   #110
zeggman
Graduate Poster
 
zeggman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
I think any time spent pondering things that cannot possibly amount to anything other than "personal enlightenment" is a waste of time.

at least art has aesthetic value
So pondering a question like "what's this poet trying to communicate here" would or would not be a waste of time?

I've found some philosophy useful, and some philosophy not so useful. I try to encourage what's useful by sharing it, and kill what's not so useful by forgetting about it.
zeggman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 04:17 PM   #111
TeapotCavalry
Muse
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Scientific reasoning is based on experiments and facts, not assumptions.
I would say (scientific) reasoning is not based on experiments and facts, but is applied to experiments and facts. It is based on ideas (deduction, induction), syntax (logic) and axioms (laws of thought). Philosophy identifies and describes these things.
__________________
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."
TeapotCavalry is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 05:13 PM   #112
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
You mean "Making an assessment of the probabilities of ethical activities leading to the desired result rather than an unformed chaos of Bayesian events eventuating in a very unpleasant scent in a confined but moving space"?

Rules of Philosophy:

1. Never use a naked noun, always clothe it in many adjectives, the longer and more Latin sounding the better.


2. Banish brevity.

3. When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
So it was you who invented post-modernistic babbling.

Baaad tsig.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 05:19 PM   #113
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
Don't mean to be rude, but have you as much as wikied any of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...ific_reasoning

This is pretty basic stuff Atwill is saying. Scientists don't need to know it, but this is what science is based on. Might be common sense, but the point is to identify what axioms they are using.

As for the OP, what I detest is when people who self-identify as skeptics claim philosophy to be practically worthless. It is vastly ironic, but also a bit sad.
What is irritating is people criticising skeptics for being skeptical of the claims of philosophy although no evidence for its value is ever produced.

All we have are claims that everything we do is somehow philosophical.

I can go one further and claim that my discipline of aaargism is everything that ever worked in any way whatsoever. Therefore aaargism is important and everyone should respect the power of aaargism and aaargers because without aaargism, nothing would work.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 05:26 PM   #114
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Atwill View Post
I do consider the ones I mentioned to be axioms of science. Are you asking for examples of axioms that are *exclusive* to science? That'd be difficult for me, I guess, considering the universality of many of them, but the assumption of the reliability of deduction and empirical evidence come to mind.
...
There are two reasons we assume our logic is correct and that evidence is repeatable. One is that we have never found another two assumptions that could possibly work and the second is that the assumptions appear to work.

If this is philosophy, it is a very minor and trivial part of science.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 05:44 PM   #115
zeggman
Graduate Poster
 
zeggman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
What is irritating is people criticising skeptics for being skeptical of the claims of philosophy although no evidence for its value is ever produced.
Also, people who state flatly "no evidence for <some claim> has ever been produced" when it is obvious that evidence HAS been produced, but the flat staters were not convinced by it.

Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
There are two reasons we assume our logic is correct and that evidence is repeatable. One is that we have never found another two assumptions that could possibly work and the second is that the assumptions appear to work.

If this is philosophy, it is a very minor and trivial part of science.
The claim that evidence has value in deducing the truth of a proposition is a philosophical one, and is a fundamental, rather than "a very minor and trivial," part of science.
zeggman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 05:56 PM   #116
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
not in a terrible ,ranty mood anymore, so looking back, I shouldn't have made this thread.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 05:57 PM   #117
hodgy
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 979
I think we can divide the world in 2 and comment separately.

Historical Philosophy: I think that Plato, Hume and Descartes gave us a real advance in the methodology of thought. I think that they and some other philosophers were essential in moving mankind's cognisance forwards.

University Philosophy: Some bellends combining discussion of the history of philosophy with ethics, politics, history and language to come up with some irrelevant conjecture and claiming some authority in the process.
__________________
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
hodgy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 06:08 PM   #118
hodgy
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 979
For example:
Cogito ergo sum - the 12 year old me understood this essential truth immediately.
Thus Spake Zarathustra - the 13 year old me thought what the bloody hell is this all about? I also read other existentialist philosophers - what a load of bollocks that all was.
__________________
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
hodgy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 06:21 PM   #119
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,530
Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry View Post
I would say (scientific) reasoning is not based on experiments and facts, but is applied to experiments and facts. It is based on ideas (deduction, induction), syntax (logic) and axioms (laws of thought). Philosophy identifies and describes these things.
I thought that's what a dictionary does.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 06:27 PM   #120
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,530
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
Also, people who state flatly "no evidence for <some claim> has ever been produced" when it is obvious that evidence HAS been produced, but the flat staters were not convinced by it.


The claim that evidence has value in deducing the truth of a proposition is a philosophical one, and is a fundamental, rather than "a very minor and trivial," part of science.
The claim that evidence has value in deducing the truth of a proposition is not a philosophical one.

Assertions are easy.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.