[Moderated] The "I DETEST PHILOSOPHY" Thread - Page 8

spin0 · 29th November 2012, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

No, it's not. Indeed, it's pretty much the opposite of postmodernism.

What do you mean "opposite"? What is the "opposite of postmodernism"? Modern?

ETA: I'll communicate my previous idea again using a postmodern method of communication.

Rairun · 29th November 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by spin0

Don't be so hard - it's not their fault, it's just a postmodern thing. In a postmodern way it's possible to pretend that for example empirism or positivism or falsificationism are not philosophical consepts as long as you don't say 'empirism'/'positivism'/'falsificationism' but only talk about experiments, results and validation/invalidation.

It's not reasonable nor logical, but in layman's postmodernism all opinions become valid when they are expressed. And pretending to live in a vacuum, without recognizing the influence of the philosophies of the world outside, is part of that line of thinking.

You are almost completely wrong. You are only right when you say that this sort of crude positivism is ahistorical, but this has nothing to do with a "everything goes" postmodern approach. As PixyMisa pointed out, both positions are pretty much polar opposites.

TeapotCavalry · 29th November 2012, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by spin0

ETA: I'll communicate my previous idea again using a postmodern method of communication.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7283/philo1v.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img94/355/philo2.jpg

Brilliant

Rairun · 29th November 2012, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by spin0

What do you mean "opposite"? What is the "opposite of postmodernism"? Modern?[/url]

Well, the true opposite of post-modernism ("everything goes") is a position which claims absolute knowledge. But since that position is easily debunked, we have to lower our bar a little and go with scientific theories that display predictive power + simplicity. I myself hold that position. Scientific truths are not ontological, but they are very reliable. As such, they are the opposite of a philosophy which claims that no piece of knowledge can be said to be more certain than any other.

This has NOTHING to do with the ahistorical mindset some people here seem to hold. This mindset exists mostly out of historical ignorance. Yes, you can be a scientist today, make important discoveries and claim you know nothing about philosophy. But that doesn't mean philosophy didn't have a historical role in shaping the methods you now use, nor that philosophy won't be important for further methodological developments.

Kevin_Lowe · 29th November 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

Bentham was a child prodigy who claimed he became a reformer at the age of 11, a claim slightly disproven by his criticism of the American Declaration of Independence at the age of 28 and designing a prison when 38 as 'a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example'. Chilling words indeed. He wanted the contract for building the thing and to govern it. When this failed to occur he had a sense of injustice (well he would, he was a lawyer) and developed ideas of 'sinister interests'.

This right here is an excellent demonstration of why some people could benefit from studying philosophy. As responses go this is terrible - you've googled up a web page that has some personal criticisms of Bentham, and repeated them as if they were somehow pertinent, but they are utterly irrelevant to the actual question of whether he had contributed something useful to ethics, or whether he was substantially ahead of his time on ethical issues.

Odds are that web page you found, if you had dug around a bit, would have a theistic origin by the way. The kind of people who like to position theism as the sole source of ethical clarity don't like Bentham very much, so they have the odd screed attacking his character as a substitute for being able to attack his actual philosophy.

Quote:

Obviously a very bright man, he developed his ideas of reform and utilitarianism in a precise and logical manner.

But nowhere can I see how philosophy points out that his ideas of reform are correct.

You do move those goalposts fast sometimes. Who said that "philosophy points out that his ideas of reform are correct"? I'd go so far as to say that I think his general approach is the best we know of, but that's not the same thing as "philosophy points out that his ideas of reform are correct".

Quote:

There is no doubt he was years ahead of his time in many areas of social reform but it is harder to understand the thesis that philosophy points to a correct solution.

I repeat the question: What would an ethicist have to have done, in order to satisfy you that they had contributed something important to ethics? Do you have any actual goalposts at all? Or are you just pretending to have some goalposts in order to waste our time?

Rairun · 29th November 2012, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by spin0

ETA: I'll communicate my previous idea again using a postmodern method of communication.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7283/philo1v.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img94/355/philo2.jpg

Also, you're missing the point with the images you posted. You are depicting someone having a disagreement about definitions - it has nothing to do with facts, only with categorization.

Quite frankly, I think it's stupid to redefine philosophy, which is a word used to describe a very eclectic social phenomenon, just so you can get rid of the good parts and call the whole thing useless. But this doesn't have anything to do with denying there is such a thing as knowledge, nor with claiming that knowledge is just "opinions". Post-modernism really doesn't figure in this discussion.

PixyMisa · 29th November 2012, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by spin0

What do you mean "opposite"? What is the "opposite of postmodernism"? Modern?

Empiricism.

Quote:

ETA: I'll communicate my previous idea again using a postmodern method of communication.

Why?

IanS · 29th November 2012, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Well, to pick one out that's easy to talk about, Marx's idea that human nature was driven entirely by social context has been abandoned (refuted in detail by Norman Geras) so that philosophers accept that human nature is a combination of innate and social. This resolved the nature vs. nurture argument.

.

How can philosophical thought alone determine what role genetics and brain chemistry etc. play in whatever innate human behaviour you call "human nature"?

How did philosophers find out in the first place that genes and brain chemistry even existed? Which philosophers discovered that?

Fudbucker · 29th November 2012, 07:14 AM

Since all the sciences developed out of natural philosophy, why on Earth would you want to stop doing philosophy now? Who knows what future branch of science will develop from philosophy?

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Since all the sciences developed out of natural philosophy, why on Earth would you want to stop doing philosophy now? Who knows what future branch of science will develop from philosophy?

Natural philosophy is what they used to call science,

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

How can philosophical thought alone determine what role genetics and brain chemistry etc. play in whatever innate human behaviour you call "human nature"?

How did philosophers find out in the first place that genes and brain chemistry even existed? Which philosophers discovered that?

No idea, but apparently scientists would be sitting around scratching their heads if it wasn't for philosophers.

tsig · 29th November 2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Since all the sciences developed out of natural philosophy, why on Earth would you want to stop doing philosophy now? Who knows what future branch of science will develop from philosophy?

Since chemistry developed out of Alchemy, why would you want to stop doing Alchemy now? Who knows what future science will develop from Alchemy.

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Since chemistry developed out of Alchemy, why would you want to stop doing Alchemy now? Who knows what future science will develop from Alchemy.

Did the Alchemists sit around pondering all day, or did they perform experiments?

TeapotCavalry · 29th November 2012, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

No idea, but apparently scientists would be sitting around scratching their heads if it wasn't for philosophers.

According to whom?

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry

According to whom?

You haven't read the whole thread?

marplots · 29th November 2012, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Nope. Truth is the purview of religion, not philosophy.

Originally Posted by dafydd

Lies being the purview of philosophy?

Perhaps we need a third category?

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Perhaps we need a third category?

Perhaps we do.

marplots · 29th November 2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

How can philosophical thought alone determine what role genetics and brain chemistry etc. play in whatever innate human behaviour you call "human nature"?

How did philosophers find out in the first place that genes and brain chemistry even existed? Which philosophers discovered that?

And here we have the basis for a fundamental mischaracterization of philosophy. The implication is that philosophy consists only of introspection, argument and eclectic ruminations -- necessarily removed and ignoring input from the outside world. However, it's exactly this outside world that generates all the discussion.

There is no such thing as "philosophical thought alone."

Furthermore, it seems odd to think that science somehow "owns" reality when it ignores so much of it in favor of that portion amenable to experimentation. I am curious to find out which area of scientific research will undertake to answer these questions in philosophy?

What is my purpose and reason for being? How do I achieve my purpose?
What is my obligation (if any) to my fellow men?
What is true, moral, just, and beautiful?
Do these apply to all rational persons? What about animals?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
How should I live? What life or ideal should I live or die for?
What are the limits of human knowledge and understanding?
On what can I base my answers to these questions?

I have heard it said that a good question in science is one where there is a clear path to an answer. Philosophy doesn't have that limitation.

the PC apeman · 29th November 2012, 09:27 AM

Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. Any time spent wondering why that is is, you guessed it, engaging in philosophy as well. I'm amazed at how many people here feel compelled to do that which they despise.

Acleron · 29th November 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

I see how the trick works. If a philosopher has anything useful to say about science, he's not acting as a philosopher when he says it, he's being scientific!

And when scientists delve into philosophy, why they are doing it the right way, and besides, they aren't philosophers anyhow.

Now, if I could only come up with an empirical test for this, I'd be able to figure out the truth.

The real point is that you have to be neither a philosopher or trained in philosophy to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in science.

If philosophers want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything.

tsig · 29th November 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by the PC apeman

Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. Any time spent wondering why that is is, you guessed it, engaging in philosophy as well. I'm amazed at how many people here feel compelled to do that which they despise.

And clearly all atheists believe in god they just refuse to admit it.

The very act of getting out of bed in the morning is an act of faith.

marplots · 29th November 2012, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

The real point is that you have to be neither a philosopher or trained in philosophy to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in science.

If philosophers want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything.

Here's why that's wrong:

The real point is that you have to be neither a scientist or trained in science to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in psychic research.

If scientists want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything.

Some of the best criticisms come from outside perspectives using different tools.

the PC apeman · 29th November 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

And clearly all atheists believe in god they just refuse to admit it.

The very act of getting out of bed in the morning is an act of faith.

tsig, it would help a great deal towards understanding your position if you could indicate which of these statements you feel are false.

1. Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement.

2. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy.

3. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question.

Doubt · 29th November 2012, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by the PC apeman

Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. Any time spent wondering why that is is, you guessed it, engaging in philosophy as well. I'm amazed at how many people here feel compelled to do that which they despise.

I agree. Also we have those that reject philosophy by attempting to classify the parts of it they like as not being philosophy.

Time to trot out the concept of epistemological privilege of science. Simply put, the scientific method gets better results than reasoning without experimentation. This is a philosophical concept that today seems self evident and is being ignored by the anti-philosophy crowd here.

Skepticism itself is a philosophical concept.

Scientific research should, but does not have to be, guided by ethical guidelines. Ethics is a branch of philosophy.

Critical thinking is a tool of philosophy that is used by science.

But all of that stated, most of what comes out of philosophy these days is useless or worse. You do not need to be a "philosopher" to use anything I described above. But attempting to reject philosophy as a whole is rather pointless. There is no clear demarcation point between science and philosophy. They overlap a bit and a lot of the arguments here are misguided.

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Here's why that's wrong:

The real point is that you have to be neither a scientist or trained in science to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in psychic research.

If scientists want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything.

Some of the best criticisms come from outside perspectives using different tools.

Not so good, scientists study reality, not the fantasy world of the paranormal.

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by the PC apeman

3. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question.

Why not?

marplots · 29th November 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Not so good, scientists study reality, not the fantasy world of the paranormal.

Just to check, do you think philosophy studies a fantasy world as well?

And to check further, do you think mathematics studies a fantasy world?

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Just to check, do you think philosophy studies a fantasy world as well?

And to check further, do you think mathematics studies a fantasy world?

1 I don't know every philosopher in the world.
2 Have you stopped beating your wife?

the PC apeman · 29th November 2012, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Why not?

Perhaps I'm wrong about that. But I have a hard time seeing how it would be amenable to the scientific process. Can you help to see that it is?

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by the PC apeman

Perhaps I'm wrong about that. But I have a hard time seeing how it would be amenable to the scientific process. Can you help to see that it is?

Not me mate, I'm just a Welsh thicko who doesn't understand the high falutin' world of philosophy.

marplots · 29th November 2012, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

1 I don't know every philosopher in the world.
2 Have you stopped beating your wife?

Temporarily.

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Temporarily.

Was that a philosophical decision or has she just been hospitalized?

TeapotCavalry · 29th November 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You haven't read the whole thread?

Yes, I have.

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry

Yes, I have.

Good.

joesixpack · 29th November 2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Not me mate, I'm just a Welsh thicko who doesn't understand the high falutin' world of philosophy.

Yet you feel perfectly justified in rejecting it as useless?

The Norseman · 29th November 2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by spin0

Don't be so hard - it's not their fault, it's just a postmodern thing. In a postmodern way it's possible to pretend that for example empirism or positivism or falsificationism are not philosophical consepts as long as you don't say 'empirism'/'positivism'/'falsificationism' but only talk about experiments, results and validation/invalidation.

Because they are different things. Empiricism, positivism, and falsification are all philosophy. Experiments, results, and validation are all science.

dafydd · 29th November 2012, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Yet you feel perfectly justified in rejecting it as useless?

Not useless, just irrelevant when it comes to solving the problems of mankind and making scientific progress. It's a nice hobby for some.

Fudbucker · 29th November 2012, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Since chemistry developed out of Alchemy, why would you want to stop doing Alchemy now? Who knows what future science will develop from Alchemy.

Is your position that philosphers are the same as alchemists? If so, prove it. If not, why bother posting this?

The Norseman · 29th November 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Furthermore, it seems odd to think that science somehow "owns" reality when it ignores so much of it in favor of that portion amenable to experimentation.

What portion of reality is not amenable to experimentation?

Quote:

I am curious to find out which area of scientific research will undertake to answer these questions in philosophy?

What is my purpose and reason for being? How do I achieve my purpose?
What is my obligation (if any) to my fellow men?
What is true, moral, just, and beautiful?
Do these apply to all rational persons? What about animals?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
How should I live? What life or ideal should I live or die for?
What are the limits of human knowledge and understanding?
On what can I base my answers to these questions?

What answers has philosophy come up with so far that have a similar (not exact) metric of 'truth' as science does?

Quote:

I have heard it said that a good question in science is one where there is a clear path to an answer.

Probably said by a philosopher.

Quote:

Philosophy doesn't have that limitation.

'Anything goes' is kinda cool, I admit.

TeapotCavalry · 29th November 2012, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Good.

So any chance of you quoting who claimed it or...? Are we now completely happy with bare assertions when it comes to bashing philosophy and making strawmen?

29th November 2012, 05:34 AM	#281
spin0 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 604	Originally Posted by PixyMisa No, it's not. Indeed, it's pretty much the opposite of postmodernism. What do you mean "opposite"? What is the "opposite of postmodernism"? Modern? ETA: I'll communicate my previous idea again using a postmodern method of communication.
	Last edited by spin0; 29th November 2012 at 05:46 AM.

29th November 2012, 05:50 AM	#282
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by spin0 Don't be so hard - it's not their fault, it's just a postmodern thing. In a postmodern way it's possible to pretend that for example empirism or positivism or falsificationism are not philosophical consepts as long as you don't say 'empirism'/'positivism'/'falsificationism' but only talk about experiments, results and validation/invalidation. It's not reasonable nor logical, but in layman's postmodernism all opinions become valid when they are expressed. And pretending to live in a vacuum, without recognizing the influence of the philosophies of the world outside, is part of that line of thinking. You are almost completely wrong. You are only right when you say that this sort of crude positivism is ahistorical, but this has nothing to do with a "everything goes" postmodern approach. As PixyMisa pointed out, both positions are pretty much polar opposites.
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479

29th November 2012, 05:51 AM	#283
TeapotCavalry Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Estonia Posts: 211	Originally Posted by spin0 ETA: I'll communicate my previous idea again using a postmodern method of communication. http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7283/philo1v.jpg http://imageshack.us/a/img94/355/philo2.jpg Brilliant
	__________________ "As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."

29th November 2012, 06:04 AM	#284
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by spin0 What do you mean "opposite"? What is the "opposite of postmodernism"? Modern?[/url] Well, the true opposite of post-modernism ("everything goes") is a position which claims absolute knowledge. But since that position is easily debunked, we have to lower our bar a little and go with scientific theories that display predictive power + simplicity. I myself hold that position. Scientific truths are not ontological, but they are very reliable. As such, they are the opposite of a philosophy which claims that no piece of knowledge can be said to be more certain than any other. This has NOTHING to do with the ahistorical mindset some people here seem to hold. This mindset exists mostly out of historical ignorance. Yes, you can be a scientist today, make important discoveries and claim you know nothing about philosophy. But that doesn't mean philosophy didn't have a historical role in shaping the methods you now use, nor that philosophy won't be important for further methodological developments.
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479

29th November 2012, 06:11 AM	#285
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,264	Originally Posted by Acleron Bentham was a child prodigy who claimed he became a reformer at the age of 11, a claim slightly disproven by his criticism of the American Declaration of Independence at the age of 28 and designing a prison when 38 as 'a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example'. Chilling words indeed. He wanted the contract for building the thing and to govern it. When this failed to occur he had a sense of injustice (well he would, he was a lawyer) and developed ideas of 'sinister interests'. This right here is an excellent demonstration of why some people could benefit from studying philosophy. As responses go this is terrible - you've googled up a web page that has some personal criticisms of Bentham, and repeated them as if they were somehow pertinent, but they are utterly irrelevant to the actual question of whether he had contributed something useful to ethics, or whether he was substantially ahead of his time on ethical issues. Odds are that web page you found, if you had dug around a bit, would have a theistic origin by the way. The kind of people who like to position theism as the sole source of ethical clarity don't like Bentham very much, so they have the odd screed attacking his character as a substitute for being able to attack his actual philosophy. Quote: Obviously a very bright man, he developed his ideas of reform and utilitarianism in a precise and logical manner. But nowhere can I see how philosophy points out that his ideas of reform are correct. You do move those goalposts fast sometimes. Who said that "philosophy points out that his ideas of reform are correct"? I'd go so far as to say that I think his general approach is the best we know of, but that's not the same thing as "philosophy points out that his ideas of reform are correct". Quote: There is no doubt he was years ahead of his time in many areas of social reform but it is harder to understand the thesis that philosophy points to a correct solution. I repeat the question: What would an ethicist have to have done, in order to satisfy you that they had contributed something important to ethics? Do you have any actual goalposts at all? Or are you just pretending to have some goalposts in order to waste our time?
	__________________ 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

29th November 2012, 06:18 AM	#286
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by spin0 ETA: I'll communicate my previous idea again using a postmodern method of communication. http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7283/philo1v.jpg http://imageshack.us/a/img94/355/philo2.jpg Also, you're missing the point with the images you posted. You are depicting someone having a disagreement about definitions - it has nothing to do with facts, only with categorization. Quite frankly, I think it's stupid to redefine philosophy, which is a word used to describe a very eclectic social phenomenon, just so you can get rid of the good parts and call the whole thing useless. But this doesn't have anything to do with denying there is such a thing as knowledge, nor with claiming that knowledge is just "opinions". Post-modernism really doesn't figure in this discussion.
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479

29th November 2012, 06:35 AM	#287
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,906	Originally Posted by spin0 What do you mean "opposite"? What is the "opposite of postmodernism"? Modern? Empiricism. Quote: ETA: I'll communicate my previous idea again using a postmodern method of communication. Why?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th November 2012, 07:00 AM	#288
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by marplots Well, to pick one out that's easy to talk about, Marx's idea that human nature was driven entirely by social context has been abandoned (refuted in detail by Norman Geras) so that philosophers accept that human nature is a combination of innate and social. This resolved the nature vs. nurture argument. . How can philosophical thought alone determine what role genetics and brain chemistry etc. play in whatever innate human behaviour you call "human nature"? How did philosophers find out in the first place that genes and brain chemistry even existed? Which philosophers discovered that?
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,006

29th November 2012, 07:14 AM	#289
Fudbucker Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 488	Since all the sciences developed out of natural philosophy, why on Earth would you want to stop doing philosophy now? Who knows what future branch of science will develop from philosophy?

29th November 2012, 07:27 AM	#290
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by Fudbucker Since all the sciences developed out of natural philosophy, why on Earth would you want to stop doing philosophy now? Who knows what future branch of science will develop from philosophy? Natural philosophy is what they used to call science,
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 07:28 AM	#291
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by IanS How can philosophical thought alone determine what role genetics and brain chemistry etc. play in whatever innate human behaviour you call "human nature"? How did philosophers find out in the first place that genes and brain chemistry even existed? Which philosophers discovered that? No idea, but apparently scientists would be sitting around scratching their heads if it wasn't for philosophers.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 07:32 AM	#292
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,672	Originally Posted by Fudbucker Since all the sciences developed out of natural philosophy, why on Earth would you want to stop doing philosophy now? Who knows what future branch of science will develop from philosophy? Since chemistry developed out of Alchemy, why would you want to stop doing Alchemy now? Who knows what future science will develop from Alchemy.

29th November 2012, 07:48 AM	#293
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by tsig Since chemistry developed out of Alchemy, why would you want to stop doing Alchemy now? Who knows what future science will develop from Alchemy. Did the Alchemists sit around pondering all day, or did they perform experiments?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 07:55 AM	#294
TeapotCavalry Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Estonia Posts: 211	Originally Posted by dafydd No idea, but apparently scientists would be sitting around scratching their heads if it wasn't for philosophers. According to whom?
	__________________ "As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."

29th November 2012, 08:21 AM	#295
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry According to whom? You haven't read the whole thread?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 08:54 AM	#296
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367	Originally Posted by marplots Nope. Truth is the purview of religion, not philosophy. Originally Posted by dafydd Lies being the purview of philosophy? Perhaps we need a third category?
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367

29th November 2012, 09:08 AM	#297
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by marplots Perhaps we need a third category? Perhaps we do.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 09:12 AM	#298
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367	Originally Posted by IanS How can philosophical thought alone determine what role genetics and brain chemistry etc. play in whatever innate human behaviour you call "human nature"? How did philosophers find out in the first place that genes and brain chemistry even existed? Which philosophers discovered that? And here we have the basis for a fundamental mischaracterization of philosophy. The implication is that philosophy consists only of introspection, argument and eclectic ruminations -- necessarily removed and ignoring input from the outside world. However, it's exactly this outside world that generates all the discussion. There is no such thing as "philosophical thought alone." Furthermore, it seems odd to think that science somehow "owns" reality when it ignores so much of it in favor of that portion amenable to experimentation. I am curious to find out which area of scientific research will undertake to answer these questions in philosophy? What is my purpose and reason for being? How do I achieve my purpose? What is my obligation (if any) to my fellow men? What is true, moral, just, and beautiful? Do these apply to all rational persons? What about animals? Why is there something rather than nothing? How should I live? What life or ideal should I live or die for? What are the limits of human knowledge and understanding? On what can I base my answers to these questions? I have heard it said that a good question in science is one where there is a clear path to an answer. Philosophy doesn't have that limitation.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367	Last edited by marplots; 29th November 2012 at 09:18 AM.

29th November 2012, 09:27 AM	#299
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. Any time spent wondering why that is is, you guessed it, engaging in philosophy as well. I'm amazed at how many people here feel compelled to do that which they despise.
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

29th November 2012, 09:55 AM	#300
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,928	Originally Posted by marplots I see how the trick works. If a philosopher has anything useful to say about science, he's not acting as a philosopher when he says it, he's being scientific! And when scientists delve into philosophy, why they are doing it the right way, and besides, they aren't philosophers anyhow. Now, if I could only come up with an empirical test for this, I'd be able to figure out the truth. The real point is that you have to be neither a philosopher or trained in philosophy to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in science. If philosophers want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything.

29th November 2012, 10:01 AM	#301
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,672	Originally Posted by the PC apeman Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. Any time spent wondering why that is is, you guessed it, engaging in philosophy as well. I'm amazed at how many people here feel compelled to do that which they despise. And clearly all atheists believe in god they just refuse to admit it. The very act of getting out of bed in the morning is an act of faith.
	Last edited by tsig; 29th November 2012 at 10:02 AM.

29th November 2012, 10:05 AM	#302
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367	Originally Posted by Acleron The real point is that you have to be neither a philosopher or trained in philosophy to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in science. If philosophers want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything. Here's why that's wrong: The real point is that you have to be neither a scientist or trained in science to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in psychic research. If scientists want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything. Some of the best criticisms come from outside perspectives using different tools.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367

29th November 2012, 10:06 AM	#303
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	Originally Posted by tsig And clearly all atheists believe in god they just refuse to admit it. The very act of getting out of bed in the morning is an act of faith. tsig, it would help a great deal towards understanding your position if you could indicate which of these statements you feel are false. 1. Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. 2. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. 3. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question.
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

29th November 2012, 10:13 AM	#304
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,443	Originally Posted by the PC apeman Making a distinction between science and pseudo-science seems to be a staple of the current skeptics movement. Doing so is engaging in the philosophy of science branch of philosophy. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. Any time spent wondering why that is is, you guessed it, engaging in philosophy as well. I'm amazed at how many people here feel compelled to do that which they despise. I agree. Also we have those that reject philosophy by attempting to classify the parts of it they like as not being philosophy. Time to trot out the concept of epistemological privilege of science. Simply put, the scientific method gets better results than reasoning without experimentation. This is a philosophical concept that today seems self evident and is being ignored by the anti-philosophy crowd here. Skepticism itself is a philosophical concept. Scientific research should, but does not have to be, guided by ethical guidelines. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. Critical thinking is a tool of philosophy that is used by science. But all of that stated, most of what comes out of philosophy these days is useless or worse. You do not need to be a "philosopher" to use anything I described above. But attempting to reject philosophy as a whole is rather pointless. There is no clear demarcation point between science and philosophy. They overlap a bit and a lot of the arguments here are misguided.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,443	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!

29th November 2012, 10:30 AM	#305
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by marplots Here's why that's wrong: The real point is that you have to be neither a scientist or trained in science to think logically, derive ideas and concepts or do anything else in psychic research. If scientists want to comment on the process they are quite entitled, but, from experience, they won't be contributing anything. Some of the best criticisms come from outside perspectives using different tools. Not so good, scientists study reality, not the fantasy world of the paranormal.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 10:32 AM	#306
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by the PC apeman 3. Defining what is and is not science is not a science question. Why not?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 10:34 AM	#307
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367	Originally Posted by dafydd Not so good, scientists study reality, not the fantasy world of the paranormal. Just to check, do you think philosophy studies a fantasy world as well? And to check further, do you think mathematics studies a fantasy world?
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367

29th November 2012, 10:45 AM	#308
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by marplots Just to check, do you think philosophy studies a fantasy world as well? And to check further, do you think mathematics studies a fantasy world? 1 I don't know every philosopher in the world. 2 Have you stopped beating your wife?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 10:47 AM	#309
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	Originally Posted by dafydd Why not? Perhaps I'm wrong about that. But I have a hard time seeing how it would be amenable to the scientific process. Can you help to see that it is?
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

29th November 2012, 11:00 AM	#310
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by the PC apeman Perhaps I'm wrong about that. But I have a hard time seeing how it would be amenable to the scientific process. Can you help to see that it is? Not me mate, I'm just a Welsh thicko who doesn't understand the high falutin' world of philosophy.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 11:31 AM	#311
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367	Originally Posted by dafydd 1 I don't know every philosopher in the world. 2 Have you stopped beating your wife? Temporarily.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,367

29th November 2012, 11:36 AM	#312
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by marplots Temporarily. Was that a philosophical decision or has she just been hospitalized?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 11:51 AM	#313
TeapotCavalry Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Estonia Posts: 211	Originally Posted by dafydd You haven't read the whole thread? Yes, I have.
	__________________ "As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough."

29th November 2012, 11:53 AM	#314
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by TeapotCavalry Yes, I have. Good.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th November 2012, 11:58 AM	#315
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,385	Originally Posted by dafydd Not me mate, I'm just a Welsh thicko who doesn't understand the high falutin' world of philosophy. Yet you feel perfectly justified in rejecting it as useless?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.