Eise

Philosophy (split from Sam Harris thread)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I am sure I could find many many more examples.

Definitely. I think you would be hard pressed to find a discovery that was not an unknown.  (The clue seems to lie in the deifnition of discovery.) So Gees must mean something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, beecee said:

Yeah, sure, but that is because science was virtually non existent. Humanity could not explain the Moon, Sun, night and day, even Summer and Winter. They had a need for an explanation and the easiest explanation was some deity or creator. We now know better. We are even able to reasonably explain the whole observable universe, at least back to t+10-43 seconds. We don't need any mythical deity anymore.

Beecee;

Well that is an interesting opinion. I do, however, have a problem with it. I have many friends, neighbors, and family members, who know all about the Moon, Sun, night and day, and even Summer and Winter, yet they still go to church on Sundays.

So I think that your opinion is based on dismissal, denial, and a stunning lack of logic. You do realize that you are making my points for me, don't you?

Gee

 

Studiot;

3 hours ago, studiot said:

No I did not miss the sometimes.

But since you made a statement, conditional on the sometimes, I asked about the times when that holds true.

Since I offered two mutually exclusive possibilities (the third not said being a combination) the reply "In no way" is puzzling to say the least.

You asked, "In what way" I suggest that synthesis is invalid when used correctly. I responded, "In no way." -- is it invalid when it is used correctly. Now if you would like an example of what I think of as an invalid way to process and synthesize information, look to Beecee's post.

 

Quote

 

I am sorry we are havng such trouble communicating, but I certainly can't agree that discoveries deal with the known.

Surely that is a self contridiction?

How is something a discovery if it is already known?

 

You are making me smile. This truly is a communication problem, and I have been thinking about how to present it to you.

You know how someone in the forums will state that they have a "theory", and a member will explain that what they have is definitely not a theory, not even close. This is because Science takes the word, theory, very seriously. Philosophy is kind of like that with the word, known. Philosophy studies knowledge, how we know that it is knowledge, how we know that it is true. If it is not true, then it is not knowledge, and learning whether or not it is true is not always easy. Some people know that there is a "God", others know that there is not; some know that their spouse would never cheat, others know that they do; some know what they saw, others know it is an illusion. All of this can not be knowledge. You can not build knowledge unless you start with knowledge, so rules have been set down that both, Philosophy and Science, use.

Or think about this: Math instructors will present a problem and ask you to solve for the "unknown". This always makes me smile -- do they think the "unknown" will be a pink unicorn? a new pair of pants? a day of the week? Of course not, it will be a number. They may not know which number, but they know it will be a number -- this is not truly an unknown. If you truly want to study an unknown, try studying consciousness. It is either a "God" or "Gods" or illusion or a holographic universe or the brain or an Intelligent Designer or maybe it is Yoda's force -- who knows?

Because I think like a philosopher, I had no trouble understanding Bertrand Russell: Science studies the known, Philosophy studies the unknown.

 

Quote

 

I stand by my scenarios, perhaps some examples might help?

1 )Van Leeuwenhoek discovered something no man had ever seen or had any idea existed.

He named these things 'animalcules'.

He was the first man to see microscopic organisms.

 

Animalcules? Are you sure? That does not sound like something that is real. Maybe he had too much to drink that night? Maybe he is under stress and his family needs to send him on vacation to somewhere sunny and warm. These are possibilities. How many people have made "discoveries" that are not really discoveries? Once he is sure of what he is seeing, it would be known (Philosophy) then he would need to be able to repeat his discovery and let his peers review his work and repeat the experiment (Science). After Science evaluated it per the rules of Science, then, and only then, it would become acknowledged accredited information.

 

Quote

 

2) Galileo dropped two cannon balls from the tower of Pisa to see which one would land first.

A test between two different theories.

 

Two known theories.

Philosophy and Science are not that different -- the biggest difference is in their methodologies. Philosophy studies what we can know, the truth of it, then Science takes over and tells us what we can objectively know or the common objective truth of it. They are more of a team than they are opponents.

Gee

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gees said:

Beecee;

Well that is an interesting opinion. I do, however, have a problem with it. I have many friends, neighbors, and family members, who know all about the Moon, Sun, night and day, and even Summer and Winter, yet they still go to church on Sundays.

So I think that your opinion is based on dismissal, denial, and a stunning lack of logic. You do realize that you are making my points for me, don't you?

The only point being made in actual fact, is that despite the power of science in general and cosmology and GR in particular, and the knowledge they have revealed to us, some cannot bare to imagine the the Earth/Milky Way and universe were not evolved for their benefits. They cling to the deity mythical nonsense for comfort, and out of some fear re the myths that have been traditionaly pumped into them from school age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gees said:

You are making me smile. This truly is a communication problem, and I have been thinking about how to present it to you.

You know how someone in the forums will state that they have a "theory", and a member will explain that what they have is definitely not a theory, not even close. This is because Science takes the word, theory, very seriously. Philosophy is kind of like that with the word, known. Philosophy studies knowledge, how we know that it is knowledge, how we know that it is true. If it is not true, then it is not knowledge, and learning whether or not it is true is not always easy. Some people know that there is a "God", others know that there is not; some know that their spouse would never cheat, others know that they do; some know what they saw, others know it is an illusion. All of this can not be knowledge. You can not build knowledge unless you start with knowledge, so rules have been set down that both, Philosophy and Science, use.

Or think about this: Math instructors will present a problem and ask you to solve for the "unknown". This always makes me smile -- do they think the "unknown" will be a pink unicorn? a new pair of pants? a day of the week? Of course not, it will be a number. They may not know which number, but they know it will be a number -- this is not truly an unknown. If you truly want to study an unknown, try studying consciousness. It is either a "God" or "Gods" or illusion or a holographic universe or the brain or an Intelligent Designer or maybe it is Yoda's force -- who knows?

Because I think like a philosopher, I had no trouble understanding Bertrand Russell: Science studies the known, Philosophy studies the unknown.

You are correct about this being a communication problem, but you have misidentified the source.

You recall the problems that arose because you insisted upon using the generic "consciousness" to cover a variety of sins, often failing to use context to distinguish between them. Now you have applied the same approach to the variety of meanings for "known".

In this regard your posts are often a poor promotion of the power of philosophy. That's something you would benefit from addressing, rather than composing and posting a faulty refutation of my observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beecee;

 

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 1:18 AM, beecee said:

The only point being made in actual fact, is that despite the power of science in general and cosmology and GR in particular, and the knowledge they have revealed to us, some cannot bare to imagine the the Earth/Milky Way and universe were not evolved for their benefits. They cling to the deity mythical nonsense for comfort, and out of some fear re the myths that have been traditionaly pumped into them from school age.

Well, this is marginally better than your last post, but your point is invalid. You are supposing that "scientific knowledge" has the ability to oppose "comfort" and "fear", which are emotions, and blaming the problem on "tradition". This is "apples and oranges" as you are  putting things together that don't go together. You know that knowledge can not be built upon assumption, beliefs, and denials. So what is the truth of this matter?

There are three Disciplines that work to give us knowledge, Science, Philosophy, and Religion. Science and Philosophy do their damnedest to avoid study of emotion, with the possible exception of Psychology. Religion is the study of emotion. Is there evidence for this? Yes, lots and lots, but I really do not want to go into it here. Humans as far back as we can discover have always had emotions, so this is the reason that Religion has consistently and pervasively been part of every culture world wide. We can not get rid of emotion as that would turn us all into psychotics. But emotion must be guided as the negative side of emotion is very dangerous.

So what do Religions do? They try to mitigate damages caused by life, which lead to negative emotions. Examples would be charities, soup kitchens, shelters for the homeless, hospitals, etc. Catholic Social Services is the largest private charity in the US, behind only the US government. Similar religious charities can be found in countries all over the world. Religions also preach love instead of hate; kindness, compassion and hope, instead of envy, anger, and greed. The fact is that emotion is the only known thing that bonds people, which is probably why Religion has been noted to be "the glue that holds a society together". 

But bonding does not require positive emotion -- only strong emotion. Groups like ISIS and the KKK claim affiliation with religion, but they are in reality corruptions of religion. They bond people through anger and fear creating hate as their bonding emotion. True Religions bond with positive emotion celebrating births, weddings, Sunday socials, or anything that brings people together in a positive supportive way.

So why do Religions teach about "mythical" deities? Two reasons. First, most people are not capable enough of abstract thought, so they need a physical representation of "God" that they can understand. Second, emotion does not like change -- does not accept change. Religions know this, so they don't push it too hard. Consider that it took tens of thousands of years to move from the "lionman" statue that is presumed to be 30 some thousand years old, to the "invisible God" that we have now. Even so, we still have to have the physical "Jesus" along with the invisible "God". We have statues of Buddha, even though Buddha himself did not want to be worshipped as a "God".

As long as people have emotions, Religions will be necessary. If you like it, or if you don't like it, this will not change reality.

Gee

 

Area54;

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:25 AM, Area54 said:

You are correct about this being a communication problem, but you have misidentified the source.

You recall the problems that arose because you insisted upon using the generic "consciousness" to cover a variety of sins, often failing to use context to distinguish between them. Now you have applied the same approach to the variety of meanings for "known".

In this regard your posts are often a poor promotion of the power of philosophy. That's something you would benefit from addressing, rather than composing and posting a faulty refutation of my observations.

I am sorry that you are having problems communicating with me, but would like to suggest that if you have a problem that arose in another thread, that it should be addressed in that thread.

Gee

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gees said:

Beecee;

Well, this is marginally better than your last post, but your point is invalid. You are supposing that "scientific knowledge" has the ability to oppose "comfort" and "fear", which are emotions, and blaming the problem on "tradition".

No not really...actually quite factual. Science is and does push the necessity of any creative spaghetti monster into near oblivion, for the valid reasons I have stated. Science doesn't care for your comfort or anyone else that needs that crutch. It has explained quite adequately how the universe evolved, how life evolved, and how we are all basically star dust. 

Quote

There are three Disciplines that work to give us knowledge, Science, Philosophy, and Religion.

Let me not mince any words...that is bunkum, at least where religion is concerned, but I'm not going into that now: Others in other threads have revealed that many times.

But something has become quite obvious, so let me go back to where you said,

Quote

 So I think that your opinion is based on dismissal, denial, and a stunning lack of logic. You do realize that you are making my points for me, don't you?

That which has become quite obvious is you most likely have an agenda. That's your choice, but your continued preaching and claiming nonsense, while explaining away with excuses that which invalidates your nonsense on a science forum, under philosophy, will obviously be revealed for what they truly are, religious rants. Please note, this is the philosophy forum, not that I'm any philosopher of any note. It isn't for preaching. That empirical observation is far more stunningly logical then any fairy stories that you chose to make up.

Quote

As long as people have emotions, Religions will be necessary. If you like it, or if you don't like it, this will not change reality.

Actually I'm quite an emotional bloke. I'm in awe at the wonders of cosmology, the beauty of astronomy, the explanatory power of Einstein's relativity, the awesome power of BHs, the incredible prediction of gravitational waves by GR and their confirmation in recent times...I'm quite emotional with regards to still wanting to be among the living to witness a manned Mars mission, or a permanent base on the Moon. Religion may be necessary for the impressionable and gullible: I'm neither. 

And finally let me say to you, that I'm not any anti religious nut. In fact I was educated at a Catholic school, and have had the same one and only wife for the past 42 years, who is a devout christian who tolerates my own beliefs or lack thereof. Our Son also went to a Catholic school, primarialy for the reason that in my opinion, they did have a better education system then the state run schools. He appreciates his Mother and my wife for the good she does in many ways, and our combined efforts in sponsoring two children from Africa. He like myself, but without too much flaunting in front of his Mother, also is in awe of the sciences. There are some good and great people who are religious...there are some religious people who are scum...there are some good and great scientists and Atheists...there are also some who are scum.

 

Have a good day.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gees said:

Area54;

I am sorry that you are having problems communicating with me, but would like to suggest that if you have a problem that arose in another thread, that it should be addressed in that thread.

Gee

I don't have a problem. You have a problem. You can ignore this problem, in which case your views will not receive the understanding they deserve and that, presumably, you are aiming for. Or you can consider the possibility that there is some substance to what I am saying. A characteristic of style that causes a problem in one thread and causes a problem in a second thread is surely one that you would wish to address. However, it is your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/10/2017 at 5:25 AM, Gees said:

 

Quote

 

I stand by my scenarios, perhaps some examples might help?

1 )Van Leeuwenhoek discovered something no man had ever seen or had any idea existed.

He named these things 'animalcules'.

He was the first man to see microscopic organisms.

 

Animalcules? Are you sure? That does not sound like something that is real. Maybe he had too much to drink that night? Maybe he is under stress and his family needs to send him on vacation to somewhere sunny and warm. These are possibilities. How many people have made "discoveries" that are not really discoveries? Once he is sure of what he is seeing, it would be known (Philosophy) then he would need to be able to repeat his discovery and let his peers review his work and repeat the experiment (Science). After Science evaluated it per the rules of Science, then, and only then, it would become acknowledged accredited information.

 

Quote

 

2) Galileo dropped two cannon balls from the tower of Pisa to see which one would land first.

A test between two different theories.

 

Two known theories.

Philosophy and Science are not that different -- the biggest difference is in their methodologies. Philosophy studies what we can know, the truth of it, then Science takes over and tells us what we can objectively know or the common objective truth of it. They are more of a team than they are opponents.

Gee

2) Is clearer so I will deal with that first.

Yes, indeed the two theories hypotheses were known.
So what?

That which was unknown was which hypothesis matched observation.

Exactly an example of Science testing to see which one was right as I said and you quoted above.

 

1) Ridicule is not a valid discussion method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans, like all animals, have a chemical brain which processes existence through feelings. The feeling of hunger, fear, warmth, fatigue, and etc govern much of the living experience. As feeling creatures humans are emotional. Love, hate, regret, anxiety, greed, boredom, etc are part of our experience. It is very difficult for people to distinguish between what is good and what is true. As emotional beings by default we tend to think all good and useful things are true.

 

It seems to me like beecee is arguing that philosophy is not equal to physics and others are arguing that philosophy absolutely is. I think both positions are true but just from different perspectives. Philosophy is good but we can't conflate being good with being right. I have seen many times on this forum were a poster will qoute philosophers in an attempt to disprove peer reviewed science. Good ideas being mistaken for accurate/proven ideas; it happens a lot. So beecee does have a point. Where science is capable of calculating for something the often speculative process of philosophy isn't terribly useful. How many threads do we see where posters who can't explain what E = mc2  means are challanging a finite vs infinite universe, time travel, theory of relativity, or etc? Clearly in those are discussions where more physics and less amature philosophy is perferred.

 

That said philosophy is the foundation of critical thinking. Without philosophy humans would cease to progress scientifically. So philosophy is still vital and important as ever. We simply must distinguish between what is good and what is true. Not settle for philosophical platitudes which provide emotional comfort without an executable or testable measure.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studiot;

10 hours ago, studiot said:

2) Is clearer so I will deal with that first.

Yes, indeed the two theories hypotheses were known.
So what?

That which was unknown was which hypothesis matched observation.

Exactly an example of Science testing to see which one was right as I said and you quoted above.

 I don't see the problem here. Yes, the hypotheses were known, metaphysics had long been established, math had long been established, the scientific method was established or well on it's way (I don't know the time frame here). So the only thing missing was a person bright enough to ask the right question and find a method to test the answer. This is science.

Is there a chance that you have the idea, that it is my position, that science does not seek knowledge? If so, then get that idea right out of your head. Philosophy and Science both seek knowledge. Philosophy seeks subjective knowledge -- truth. Science seeks objective knowledge -- facts.

Objectivity is garnered through a consensus of subjective opinions, so if the subjective knowledge is invalid, then it will invalidate the objective knowledge. That is my only point!

If anyone wants to argue that Science tests and proves it's work, so it is never wrong, I would like to suggest that you get yourself a 100 year old science book and compare it to a current science book. You will find that indeed Science can be wrong. Knowledge is accumulative, so the more we learn, the better our understanding and knowledge.

 

Quote

1) Ridicule is not a valid discussion method.

The problem here is that I was not attempting to ridicule, so I wonder how you got that idea. A little confirmation bias maybe?

What I was attempting to do was to put you into the time, or the now, of the discovery. Apparently, I did not do this very well.

Do you really think that Van Leeuwenhoek looked through his microscope and said, "Wow. Look at the animalcules. I have made a great discovery!" Or do you think it more likely that he said, "What is that?" then leaned back, rubbed his eyes, and looked again? It would have taken some time for him to examine his discovery and be sure of it before he would have shared the information with peers. This 'time' is when the unknown became the known in his subjective mind. (philosophy) Then repeatability and peer review would have established the objective fact of this knowledge. (science) 

What I tried to point out above, and I am sure you know, is that subjective knowledge is not always knowledge. It is often opinion, bias, belief, assumption, imagination, or even outright lies and manipulations. Science knows this and does not trust subjective knowledge, which would be why Science insists on repeatability and peer review, which does a fine job of turning up subjective fallacies.

But what of objective fallacies? Is there such a thing? Yes. Objective fallacies are caused by a whole group or society of subjective opinions that are based on assumptions, biases, or beliefs. Can the Scientific Method disprove these fallacies? No. Repeatability becomes confirmation bias and peer review is useless if everyone believes the same thing. Philosophy is our only effective weapon against this kind of ignorance.

Examples:

Burning witches for consorting with the Devil.

My "God" is better than your "God" wars.

The Spanish Inquisition.

Nazi Germany and the torture and experimentation on Jews.

Slavery in the early US history.

Here is one related to Science: Consciousness is thought. AI will miraculously become conscious.

We will always need Science, and we will always need Philosophy.

Gee

 

Area54;

11 hours ago, Area54 said:

I don't have a problem. You have a problem. You can ignore this problem, in which case your views will not receive the understanding they deserve and that, presumably, you are aiming for. Or you can consider the possibility that there is some substance to what I am saying. A characteristic of style that causes a problem in one thread and causes a problem in a second thread is surely one that you would wish to address. However, it is your choice.

Well, I am beginning to have a problem. This sounds personal. 

My problem is that in the thread, Consciousness and Evolution, I have tried to establish some very simple facts: All life is conscious to some degree and the thread is about life forms. All life is at least sentient (conscious) is accepted acknowledged information in both, Philosophy and Science. I have repeatedly stated that I only wish to discuss accepted acknowledged information, yet after nine pages, your last post was still waffling between the Universe is alive or life is just a chemical reaction. What the hell am I supposed to do with that speculation?

Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gees said:

Well, I am beginning to have a problem. This sounds personal.

I have only limited influence on your perceptions. Your ideas presented here and on the other thread seem quite interesting to me. That's why I have engaged in the discussion. However, as I have pointed out, a characteristic of your style obfuscates those ideas. That was problematic in the other thread, as noted by several members other than myself. Then, I notice the same issue occuring here. I could remain silent on the matter, but I would actually like to follow your argument without requiring mutltiple posts to extract your meaning,

So, it is personal in the sense that I, personally, would like to understand your arguments without unnecessary effort. You complained that the other thread was being sidetracked, so you were also suffering from the consequences of your obfuscation. You are free to continue being obtuse if you wish, but you should then accept the consequences.

My problem is that in the thread, Consciousness and Evolution, I have tried to establish some very simple facts: All life is conscious to some degree and the thread is about life forms. All life is at least sentient (conscious) is accepted acknowledged information in both, Philosophy and Science. I have repeatedly stated that I only wish to discuss accepted acknowledged information, yet after nine pages, your last post was still waffling between the Universe is alive or life is just a chemical reaction. What the hell am I supposed to do with that speculation?

It's sounds as if I was as unclear in that post as I believe you often are. I'll revisit it in the thread and provide any necessary clarification. In the meantime we can avoid these tiresome deviations if you make clear which aspect of any term with multiple aspects you are referencing any time you use that term.

Normal, on-topic, service will now be resumed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gees said:

If anyone wants to argue that Science tests and proves it's work, so it is never wrong, I would like to suggest that you get yourself a 100 year old science book and compare it to a current science book. You will find that indeed Science can be wrong. Knowledge is accumulative, so the more we learn, the better our understanding and knowledge.

And isn't that the beauty of science? In that it can add, change, modify, re-establish existing knowledge as new more extensive knowledge becomes available. But let me say that being "wrong" may not really apply in many instances...Newtonian mechanics is still correct when applied within its zone of applicability: Likewise Einstein's GR extends those zones where Newtonian does not apply, and obviously a future QGT will likewise extend those parameters again to where GR is not applicable. A matter of right tools for the right job.

13 hours ago, Ten oz said:

It seems to me like beecee is arguing that philosophy is not equal to physics and others are arguing that philosophy absolutely is. I think both positions are true but just from different perspectives. Philosophy is good but we can't conflate being good with being right. I have seen many times on this forum were a poster will qoute philosophers in an attempt to disprove peer reviewed science. Good ideas being mistaken for accurate/proven ideas; it happens a lot. So beecee does have a point. Where science is capable of calculating for something the often speculative process of philosophy isn't terribly useful. How many threads do we see where posters who can't explain what E = mc2  means are challanging a finite vs infinite universe, time travel, theory of relativity, or etc? Clearly in those are discussions where more physics and less amature philosophy is perferred.

:)  Pretty damn close actually. What my view on philosophy with regards to science and the scientific method is, is that the ground rules and foundations have been laid. The view that Laurence Krauss and others are putting in actual fact. 

Quote

 

Ten oz said:

That said philosophy is the foundation of critical thinking. Without philosophy humans would cease to progress scientifically. So philosophy is still vital and important as ever. We simply must distinguish between what is good and what is true. Not settle for philosophical platitudes which provide emotional comfort without an executable or testable measure.

 

Well said. I'm not arguing (and I don't believe Krauss is either) that philosophy is now defunct in all walks of life...I have posted the following video a few times...I'm not sure if Gee has seen it. If he hasn't I urge him to watch it...only 7.5 minutes long, but in my opinion, draws and establishes what science is, and what philosophy is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 03/10/2017 at 5:25 AM, Gees said:

Animalcules? Are you sure? That does not sound like something that is real. Maybe he had too much to drink that night? Maybe he is under stress and his family needs to send him on vacation to somewhere sunny and warm. These are possibilities.

This is plain unvarnished ridicule.

And no, they were never possibilities - try posting some real facts.

 

11 hours ago, Gees said:

I don't see the problem here.

The problem is you made an all embracing, but incorrect, claim about Science.

On 02/10/2017 at 10:13 PM, Gees said:

Whether discoveries are made by accident or intentionally, they still deal with the known.

I offered you some examples of circumstances and actual situations that transcended the limitations you claimed.

You have tried to wriggle out instead of accepting a fuller picture gracefully.

I have made no claims that my picture is the full picture, just that it extends to situations and circumstances beyond yours.

Nor have I claimed that Science or Philosophy always get it 'right' - History has shown that they don't, but BeeCee has pointed out that Science has an inbuilt correction mechanism +1

10 hours ago, beecee said:

And isn't that the beauty of science? In that it can add, change, modify, re-establish existing knowledge as new more extensive knowledge becomes available.

Notice carefully that he did not claim this process always works, or that it is a rapid process.

Quote

Gees

Philosophy and Science are not that different -- the biggest difference is in their methodologies. Philosophy studies what we can know, the truth of it, then Science takes over and tells us what we can objectively know or the common objective truth of it. They are more of a team than they are opponents.

Yes I agree that there is much overlap and yes they are definitely a team (good expression :) ), but I Idon't agree that the difference is small.

Science can often be used to answer questions like How? When? Where? How much?

But it does not generally deal the the very important (to humans) and oft asked question why?
Science will tell us how to build a 50 story office block, but it cannot answer the question why we might want or need to build one.
In general the motivation for deploynment of Science comes from elsewhere.

We need Philosophy for that, though even Philosophy can't always answer either.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gees said:

 

1 - Is there a chance that you have the idea, that it is my position, that science does not seek knowledge? If so, then get that idea right out of your head. Philosophy and Science both seek knowledge. Philosophy seeks subjective knowledge -- truth. Science seeks objective knowledge -- facts.

Objectivity is garnered through a consensus of subjective opinions, so if the subjective knowledge is invalid, then it will invalidate the objective knowledge. That is my only point!

2 - If anyone wants to argue that Science tests and proves it's work, so it is never wrong, I would like to suggest that you get yourself a 100 year old science book and compare it to a current science book. You will find that indeed Science can be wrong. Knowledge is accumulative, so the more we learn, the better our understanding and knowledge.

 

 

1 - what is true and what is a fact are interchangable just as binary logic of ones and zeroes can be read as yes and no. Philosophy seeks to understand and value; it is a system of thought. It is neither true or false. That is one of the reasons why analogies work so well in philosophical discussions. They promote relatability.

 

2 - This argument is over used. It implies a greater level of change than what exists. While in the last hundred years there have been additions to many scientific theries many more are still the same. Read a science book from a hundred years ago and it will say the Earth revolves around the Sun, Cells are the smallest known unit of life, and 2 + 2 will still equal four. Very few things which have been considered fact have been disproved with time. Isaac Newton Inner Square Law is still used to this day for various applications despite General Relativity. Knowledge is accumulative as you stated. Each new discovery or addition to information doesn't disprove what was previously understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

2 - This argument is over used. It implies a greater level of change than what exists. While in the last hundred years there have been additions to many scientific theries many more are still the same. Read a science book from a hundred years ago and it will say the Earth revolves around the Sun, Cells are the smallest known unit of life, and 2 + 2 will still equal four. Very few things which have been considered fact have been disproved with time. Isaac Newton Inner Square Law is still used to this day for various applications despite General Relativity. Knowledge is accumulative as you stated. Each new discovery or addition to information doesn't disprove what was previously understood.

What we are often doing is rendering our knowledge more granular - we are adding detail. In turn, that typically means greater complexity. This can make our older views appear simplistic, when a more honest appraisal would be that they were simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/1/2017 at 7:57 PM, Tub said:

Not being too well-versed in either Science or Philosophy, i don't really have any particular axe to grind, so i would just like to say that i think that both disciplines have equally important roles  to play in dealing with the problems the world faces today: Science to tackle the practical problems like pollution, climate-change and over-population; Philosophy to disarm the harmful religious, political and nationalistic ideologies that are threatening all our well-being. I hope both can succeed - in tandem - because they must: one without the other may not be enough.

I see the distinction you are making, however it is oriented very practically. Both science and philosophy have their theoretical parts, springing from the lust of understanding. Both know "L'art pour l'art". Philosophy even a bit too much. But intellectual analysis of religious, political and nationalistic ideologies easily lead to justified criticism. So I assume you are still more or less right...

On 10/2/2017 at 3:31 AM, Gees said:

Philosophy has no such limitation. You can philosophize about anything that you can imagine, so would you call that philosophy? I would call it garbage, or maybe Fluff. In order to keep from  wandering off into the land of Fluff, a philosopher needs to bear in mind anything that is real and incorporate that evidence into the philosopher's considerations. This is the difference between imaginings and knowledge.

No, you cannot philosophise about everything. For the empirical world we have the sciences. One can philosophise about science of course, because it is a way of human thinking. And in some cases that might have impact on the way science is done. But the facts of the world around us are the domain of the sciences.

On 10/2/2017 at 3:31 AM, Gees said:

A lot of the Eastern philosophies work very well with psychology, and I have read that some of their idea seem to relate to new ideas in Physics

Do not let you fool by Fritjof Capra...

But it is true that some modern psychology integrates some Buddhist ideas. Just as on example: Guy Claxton.

On 10/2/2017 at 3:31 AM, Gees said:

Nonsense. In order for it to become "knowledge", it first must be interpreted. Philosophy is good at interpreting.

Nonsense. The theoretical interpretation of e.g. experiments in physics is the job of physicists. The reflection on the ideas behind their theories, their structures, the regulative ideas in finding such theories and why they are justified is philosophy. But most of that is still done by the physicists themselves. 

On 10/2/2017 at 3:31 AM, Gees said:

Science can speculate all it wants, but if it wants to be "good science" it will adhere to the principals set down by philosophy.

If science wants to be good, it must be able to be empirically justified. Science is about something, and this 'about' is the touchstone of the correctness of a scientific theory. Philosophy is about the thinking about 'about'. (If you know what I mean... ;)).

On 10/2/2017 at 3:31 AM, Gees said:

We thought that insects attacking our food products should be eliminated. Science agreed and invented insecticides killing off bees and butterflies and poisoning people. Oops. So then we brought in beetles, which have become a new pest problem. Oops.

We thought that people should be able to lead longer healthier lives. Science agreed and invented vaccines, antibiotics, and many medical miracles. Now our population is growing too fast because people are not dying, so people are not having babies. Oops. Soon we may have more people collecting Social Security than people paying it. Oops.

We thought that there must be a better way to kill off the American Indians without killing ourselves. We attacked their food source, killing the buffalo. Science provided the repeating firearms and the railroad. What we did not know was that the buffalo grass was the only thing that stopped erosion in times of drought, hence the Dust Bowl. Big OOPS

I do not see what this has to do with philosophy. It are all examples of overoptimistic application of new technology, without understanding the full impact of its use.

On 10/2/2017 at 3:31 AM, Gees said:

Knowledge is accumulative. We can never know everything, so your argument is moot.

Of course. But that was a reaction on a posting of beecee where he suggested that philosophy ever could be ready.

On 10/3/2017 at 6:25 AM, Gees said:

Because I think like a philosopher, I had no trouble understanding Bertrand Russell: Science studies the known, Philosophy studies the unknown.

Funny. I think like a philosopher too, and I think Russell is wrong here...

On 10/6/2017 at 1:00 PM, Ten oz said:

It seems to me like beecee is arguing that philosophy is not equal to physics and others are arguing that philosophy absolutely is.

Just remember what beecee said:

Quote

Getting down to the nitty gritty and at the risk of offending some philosophers, philosophy while being at its basic level, the foundation on which science is built, has had its day. Practical sciences like cosmology rule our understandings at this time, based mostly on what we observe and the results of our experiments. Physics and cosmology seems to have made philosophy redundant

(Bold by me).

Philosophy and physics are not equal in that philosophy is not science. But both are intellectual endeavours in their own respect.

On 10/6/2017 at 1:00 PM, Ten oz said:

I have seen many times on this forum were a poster will qoute philosophers in an attempt to disprove peer reviewed science.

Yeah. Terrible. And give philosophy a bad name. Even modern philosophy.

On 10/6/2017 at 1:00 PM, Ten oz said:

That said philosophy is the foundation of critical thinking. Without philosophy humans would cease to progress scientifically. So philosophy is still vital and important as ever. We simply must distinguish between what is good and what is true. Not settle for philosophical platitudes which provide emotional comfort without an executable or testable measure.

Mostly agree, except the sentence I italicized. Science might still progress, but might not get its correct position in human society. To give a simple example: physicists surely the biggest experts on nuclear energy. But if it is a good idea to use it the way we do is a question that needs much more insights than just insight in physics. And to be honestly, lots of physicists do not see it that way...

Edited by Eise
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eise;

Thank you for your response. Please consider my thoughts.

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 5:02 AM, Eise said:

No, you cannot philosophise about everything. For the empirical world we have the sciences. One can philosophise about science of course, because it is a way of human thinking. And in some cases that might have impact on the way science is done. But the facts of the world around us are the domain of the sciences.

No, we can not philosophize about everything, but can we philosophize about anything?

Empirical means: What we observe and what we experience. If we remove the empirical and facts from philosophy, what is left? Imagination? I think that a lot of people have come to this conclusion, which would be why no one respects philosophy anymore.

I am not about to hand my personal observations and experiences over to Science for testing. I will use them along with any facts that Science can provide to do my work in Philosophy. That is what I meant when I said that I was "keeping it real".

 

Quote

Do not let you fool by Fritjof Capra...

But it is true that some modern psychology integrates some Buddhist ideas. Just as on example: Guy Claxton.

Well, I am not sure who Fritjof Capra is, so that is not what I was talking about. I was referring to books like, "Quantum Enigma, Physics Encounters Consciousness" where the consciousness is more closely related to Eastern Religion's ideas than it is to the Christian "God" idea -- or more abstract than physical.

 

Quote

Nonsense. The theoretical interpretation of e.g. experiments in physics is the job of physicists. The reflection on the ideas behind their theories, their structures, the regulative ideas in finding such theories and why they are justified is philosophy. But most of that is still done by the physicists themselves. 

I suspect we are talking past one another. I went back and checked in the thread, and your response was to my post about "knowledge", not physics.  I stated that Philosophy was good at interpreting knowledge. I was also not talking about "theoretical" interpretation of experiments, just simple knowledge in general. In order for something unknown to become known, it has to process through a subjective mind. Whether that process takes a half of a second or a half of a month, the process itself is Philosophy. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true.

 

Quote

If science wants to be good, it must be able to be empirically justified. Science is about something, and this 'about' is the touchstone of the correctness of a scientific theory. Philosophy is about the thinking about 'about'. (If you know what I mean... ;)).

:D

 

Quote

I do not see what this has to do with philosophy. It are all examples of overoptimistic application of new technology, without understanding the full impact of its use.

Maybe because it is my philosophy? As I stated earlier, I did not have a formal education in Philosophy, so I worked from my own ideas for a very long time. In my late teens and early twenties, I started to develop a philosophy about what "should be" in relation to what "is". Recently I found Hume's "Is and Ought", which is similar in some ways and overlaps, but is not quite the same thing.

The "Should Be's" become problematic when someone decides that what "is" is not good enough and "should be" changed. In many circumstances, change can be very good, but when that change is motivated by idealism and/or human arrogance and is also directed toward the natural order of Nature, then, sooner or later, it will become a problem. Although the examples were of a technological nature, this philosophy is not limited to technology and seems to be relevant in human and family interactions, ecosystems, and some schools of thought. You could call it a very conservative opinion when it relates to Nature.

 

Quote

Funny. I think like a philosopher too, and I think Russell is wrong here...

Well, if you think so, I am sure you will make an argument and explain why you think so.

I don't see it, and Bertrand Russell was a well respected philosopher. I don't like to say that any respected philosopher or scientist is wrong, without a good reason -- except for Dennett -- I have no problem saying that he is wrong. (chuckle)

Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten oz;

Hi. Please consider my comments below.

On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:05 AM, Ten oz said:

1 - what is true and what is a fact are interchangable just as binary logic of ones and zeroes can be read as yes and no. Philosophy seeks to understand and value; it is a system of thought. It is neither true or false. That is one of the reasons why analogies work so well in philosophical discussions. They promote relatability.

 No. Truth and fact are not interchangeable. Truth does not always lead to fact, and fact does not always give us truth. You can go to any Court, tell your absolute truth that you know to be a fact, but if you can not prove your truth, it will be taken for a lie. The fact will be that you are guilty, and it will have no relevance to the truth of the situation. Why is this so? Because truth is subjective, and is known only by the subject. Fact is objective.

But fact gives us truth, right? No. The easiest way to explain this is with illusion. If twenty people witness the same illusion and all agree on what they saw, it will be taken for objective fact. But if it was illusion, then there was no truth in it. So each subjective truth of the twenty people was false leading to a false fact. The objective is always dependent upon the subjective.

But there are facts that can stand alone because we have known about them for years, right? So they lead to truth. Not necessarily. Take the case of  Van Leeuwenhoek and his animalcules. That was in the mid 1600's, and by the 1800's we knew a lot about bacteria and it's role in infections. Yet, in the late 1800's, a country doctor would think nothing of sewing up a man, who had an accident, then riding across town on a sweaty horse, arriving in time to have a meal and use the outhouse before delivering a woman's baby -- all without even washing his hands. Three days later, he would come back to the woman's house and think that it was a shame that she was dying of "childbirth fever" and her children would be motherless, that "God" had made women weak and that it was a shame that women had to pay for Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. Two hundred years, 200 years, after we knew the facts, we still did not have any truth in this matter. Review what Wiki has to say on this under Postpartum Infections:

 

Quote

 

"The Doctor's Plague"[edit]

300px-Yearly_mortality_rates_1784-1849.p
 
In his 1861 book, Ignaz Semmelweis presented evidence to demonstrate that the advent of pathological anatomy in Vienna in 1823 (vertical line) was correlated to the incidence of fatal childbed fever there. Onset of chlorine handwash in 1847 marked by vertical line. Rates for Dublin maternity hospital, which had no pathological anatomy, is shown for comparison (view rates). His efforts were futile, however.

From the 1600s through the mid-to-late 1800s, the majority of childbed fever cases were caused by the doctors themselves. With no knowledge of germs, doctors did not believe hand washing was needed.

Hospitals for childbirth became common in the 17th century in many European cities. These "lying-in" hospitals were established at a time when there was no knowledge of antisepsis or epidemiology, and women were subjected to crowding, frequent vaginal examinations, and the use of contaminated instruments, dressings, and bedding. It was common for a doctor to deliver one baby after another, without washing his hands or changing clothes in between.

The first recorded epidemic of puerperal fever occurred at the Hôtel-Dieu de Paris in 1646. Hospitals throughout Europe and America consistently reported death rates between 20% to 25% of all women giving birth, punctuated by intermittent epidemics with up to 100% fatalities of women giving birth in childbirth wards.[21]

In the 1800s Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that women giving birth at home had a much lower incidence of childbed fever than those giving birth in the doctor's maternity ward. His investigation discovered that washing hands with an antiseptic, in this case a calcium chloride solution, before a delivery reduced childbed fever fatalities by 90%.[22] Publication of his findings was not well received by the medical profession. The idea conflicted both with the existing medical concepts and with the image doctors had of themselves.[23] The scorn and ridicule of doctors was so extreme that Semmelweis moved from Vienna and was eventually committed to a mental asylum where he died.[24]

Semmelweis was not the only doctor ignored after sounding a warning about this issue: in Treatise on the Epidemic of Puerperal Fever (1795), ex-naval surgeon and Aberdonian obstetrician Alexander Gordon warned that the disease was transmitted from one case to another by midwives and doctors. Gordon wrote, "It is a disagreeable declaration for me to mention, that I myself was the means of carrying the infection to a great number of women."[25]

Thomas Watson, Professor of Medicine at King's College Hospital, London, wrote in 1842: "Wherever puerperal fever is rife, or when a practitioner has attended any one instance of it, he should use most diligent ablution." Watson recommended handwashing with chlorine solution and changes of clothing for obstetric attendants "to prevent the practitioner becoming a vehicle of contagion and death between one patient and another."[26]

 

 So for all the facts at our disposal, very little truth came out of this. Note that women, who gave birth at home fared much better. This actually led to more disinformation, because it became apparent that country women and poor women were a hardier bunch, and with all of those children, it appeared that they also were more amenable to sex. So this evidence confirmed the "Farmer's Daughter" jokes and the idea that the classes were different, with the more "refined" ladies of quality being more virtuous. (Because they could afford doctors, who were killing them.) Remember that this happened for hundreds of years, more than enough time for people to speculate about the cause.

The wealthy women, who martyred themselves on the birthing bed, seemed to bring out the Virgin Mary Complex in many of us, so we saw their sacrifice as pure; whereas, we saw the poor, less refined, women as more animalistic. A few years back, I was reading the arguments that were made regarding the freeing of slaves in America, and I think this was one of the points mentioned. It was argued that the slaves produced progeny in much the same way animals did without the difficulty that white women had, which lent credence and evidence to the argument that they were not really human, just high-level, trainable animals. It sometimes amazes me how quickly facts and evidence can become such nonsense when interpreted badly.

By the 1900's doctors started taking "germs" seriously, but did not take the blame for the problems. Instead they decided that women were unclean, so they disinfected women, while they were in labor, and shaved them in a very private area to ensure that they were germ free. This went on in Michigan until the 1970's and was an uncomfortable and humiliating experience, not to mention afterward when the body was trying to heal, stiches were itchy, and hair was growing back. 

So after 300 years, all is well. No one is going to disinfect you, no one is going to shave you, and no one is going to infect you. It is OK to have a baby at a hospital. Now if we could just get some physicists to talk to the doctors about gravity, it could be perfect. OB doctors still like to put women on their backs in delivery with their legs in the air, which makes it awkward for the baby, who not only has to make it's way out, but also has to defy gravity to do it. It is also humiliating and uncomfortable for the mother, but I think it is pretty comfortable for the doctor.

 

Quote

2 - This argument is over used. It implies a greater level of change than what exists. While in the last hundred years there have been additions to many scientific theries many more are still the same. Read a science book from a hundred years ago and it will say the Earth revolves around the Sun, Cells are the smallest known unit of life, and 2 + 2 will still equal four. Very few things which have been considered fact have been disproved with time. Isaac Newton Inner Square Law is still used to this day for various applications despite General Relativity. Knowledge is accumulative as you stated. Each new discovery or addition to information doesn't disprove what was previously understood.

Aristarchus theorized that the Earth revolved around the Sun around 300 BC.

Copernicus confirmed It mathematically in the 1500's.

Robert Hooke identified the cell in 1665.

Math was used in Babylon and by Egypt in 3,000 BC.

The Scientific Method was first worked out by Galileo around 1600 and did not become the Science we know today until the 1700's and 1800's.

I do not understand this competition between Science and Philosophy -- it makes no sense. Science with all of it's facts is nothing but disassociated bits of information without purpose or point. Philosophy with all of it's logic and reasoning is nothing but musing and imagining without purpose or point. But when they work together, Science's facts can be interpreted in ways that bring us knowledge and understanding, and Philosophy's musings can be given reality and substance in ways that bring us knowledge and understanding. They are a damned team -- why can no one see that?

Gee

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gees said:

Philosophy with all of it's logic and reasoning is nothing but musing and imagining without purpose or point.

 

It is more than that, and I alreadyshowed where.

 

Why does my last post not merit and answer?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, studiot said:

It is more than that, and I alreadyshowed where.

Why does my last post not merit and answer?

 It does. You were next on my list. After you is Beecee and then Area54. I got five responses together in a very short time, so I am going through them one by one. I can only write one post per day, and only on good days, so you must be patient if you want to discuss something with me. Be nice to the old, slow, boring people.

Regarding Philosophy, I do not agree. If one decides that the empirical and fact fall under the domain of Science, then Philosophy has to do it's work without using experience, observation, or fact. That leaves nonsense and fluff, unless I am missing something. 

 

Studiot;

Please consider:

On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 3:26 AM, studiot said:

This is plain unvarnished ridicule.

And no, they were never possibilities - try posting some real facts.

Fine, it is ridicule, but I was not ridiculing Van Leeuwenhoek. I was attempting to show how people would react to his discovery and what he would have to deal with. If you know anything about human nature, then it was not only possible, it was probable that he would be ridiculed in this way.

Let's see what Wiki says about it: 

Quote

When the Royal Society in London published the groundbreaking work of an Italian lensmaker in their journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, de Graaf wrote to the editor of the journal, Henry Oldenburg, with a ringing endorsement of van Leeuwenhoek's microscopes which, he claimed, "far surpass those which we have hitherto seen". In response, in 1673 the society published a letter from van Leeuwenhoek that included his microscopic observations on mold, bees, and lice.[13]

Van Leeuwenhoek's work fully captured the attention of the Royal Society, and he began corresponding regularly with the society regarding his observations. At first he had been reluctant to publicize his findings, regarding himself as a businessman with little scientific, artistic, or writing background, but de Graaf urged him to be more confident in his work.[14] By the time van Leeuwenhoek died in 1723, he had written some 190 letters to the Royal Society, detailing his findings in a wide variety of fields, centered on his work in microscopy. He only wrote letters in his own colloquial Dutch; he never published a proper scientific paper in Latin. He strongly preferred to work alone, distrusting the sincerity of those who offered their assistance.[15] The letters were translated into Latin or English by Henry Oldenburg, who had learned Dutch for this very purpose. Despite the initial success of van Leeuwenhoek's relationship with the Royal Society, soon relations became severely strained. In 1676, his credibility was questioned when he sent the Royal Society a copy of his first observations of microscopic single-celled organisms. Previously, the existence of single-celled organisms was entirely unknown. Thus, even with his established reputation with the Royal Society as a reliable observer, his observations of microscopic life were initially met with some skepticism.[16]

Eventually, in the face of van Leeuwenhoek's insistence, the Royal Society arranged for Alexander Petrie, minister to the English Reformed Church in Delft; Benedict Haan, at that time Lutheran minister at Delft; and Henrik Cordes, then Lutheran minister at the Hague, accompanied by Sir Robert Gordon and four others, to determine whether it was in fact van Leeuwenhoek's ability to observe and reason clearly, or perhaps, the Royal Society's theories of life that might require reform. Finally in 1677,[17] van Leeuwenhoek's observations were fully acknowledged by the Royal Society.[18]

Please note the sections that I underlined. Van Leeuwenhoek's credibility was questioned, his microscopic life was viewed with skepticism, and his relationship with the Royal Society became severely strained -- and these were people who greatly respected him because of his development of a superior lens. It took four years, from 1673 to 1677, to get acknowledgment from the Royal Society. Why? Because people do not like to change their minds, and because of the "Royal Society's theories of life that might require reform."

He also "strongly preferred to work alone" which would just add to the secretive nature of his work. Can you not understand that people, who did not know and respect him, might resort to ridicule when faced with the idea of his wee little invisible animalcules that he likes to play with, but can only be seen through the magic glass? When no one else is looking?

This would appear to be very much like the supernatural to most people, and it would be treated with the same regard.

 

Quote

The problem is you made an all embracing, but incorrect, claim about Science.

I offered you some examples of circumstances and actual situations that transcended the limitations you claimed.

No. I made an all embracing and correct claim about knowledge, and that it was Philosophy that studied knowledge. You decided that it was an insult to Science.

 

Quote

You have tried to wriggle out instead of accepting a fuller picture gracefully.

I have made no claims that my picture is the full picture, just that it extends to situations and circumstances beyond yours.

Just as my experience extends to situations and circumstances beyond yours.

Most of my life, I have studied what we can know, and how we can know it -- Philosophy. I have applied this to the study of consciousness. I have read the theories, studied the Religions, even looked at the supernatural, and considered what Science has to say. Do you want to know what I have learned? I have learned that we do not know WTF it is. This is why Philosophy is the discipline that studies consciousness, because they are trying to learn WTF it is. That is what Philosophy does, makes the unknown known. Science tries to study consciousness by studying the brain, but they are in fact studying the brain -- not consciousness. Science can not study consciousness because they do not know WTF it is. You can not apply the scientific method to something if you do not know WTF it is.

When Van Leeuwenhoek discovered his animalcules, he categorized them and classified them as life forms. This is ontology -- Philosophy. The methodology that he used is Philosophy. When he repeated his tests, he was working Science, because that is the scientific method. Philosophy and Science are not different people, they are different methodologies.

 

Quote

Nor have I claimed that Science or Philosophy always get it 'right' - History has shown that they don't, but BeeCee has pointed out that Science has an inbuilt correction mechanism +1

Nobody gets it right every time, but that inbuilt correction mechanism did not do much for poor women and women of color that I talked about in my response to Ten oz. To this day, poor women and women of color are thought to be baby makers, although I have seen no reference to this prior to the "Doctor's Plague".

 

Quote

Yes I agree that there is much overlap and yes they are definitely a team (good expression :) ), but I Idon't agree that the difference is small.

Large v small is not the difference. The difference is in methodology and what is studied.  Philosophy studies knowledge. Science takes that knowledge and studies everything that it applies to.

 

Quote

Science can often be used to answer questions like How? When? Where? How much?

But it does not generally deal the the very important (to humans) and oft asked question why?

The methodology of Philosophy also deals with the "what" answering the questions of what it is, to make the unknown known.

 

Quote

Science will tell us how to build a 50 story office block, but it cannot answer the question why we might want or need to build one.

Can't agree here. I think that statistics and city planning would fall to Science, though Philosophy might have some input on city planning.

 

Quote

In general the motivation for deploynment of Science comes from elsewhere.

We need Philosophy for that, though even Philosophy can't always answer either.

What did Eise call it? A lust for understanding? Philosophy and Science are both very lusty.

Gee

 

Edited by Gees
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is getting way to philosophical for me. :) It reminds me of a quote I once came across.....

Quote

 

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself " 

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 1:17 AM, Gees said:

If we remove the empirical and facts from philosophy, what is left?

I think I repeated this already a few times. Philosophy is the investigation in our way of thinking.

On 10/11/2017 at 1:17 AM, Gees said:

Well, I am not sure who Fritjof Capra is, so that is not what I was talking about. I was referring to books like, "Quantum Enigma, Physics Encounters Consciousness" where the consciousness is more closely related to Eastern Religion's ideas than it is to the Christian "God" idea -- or more abstract than physical.

Capra is the godfather of new age kitsch of physics, especially of QM, comparing insights of physics with 'eastern wisdom'. So yes, such kind of books.

On 10/11/2017 at 1:17 AM, Gees said:

I suspect we are talking past one another. I went back and checked in the thread, and your response was to my post about "knowledge", not physics.

Is physics not also a kind of knowledge? Note I use 'e.g.', i.e. physics as an example of knowledge.

You said this:

Quote

In order for it to become "knowledge", it first must be interpreted. Philosophy is good at interpreting.

You suggest here science only provides experimental and observable facts, and that the theorising is the task of philosophy.

On 10/11/2017 at 1:17 AM, Gees said:

I was also not talking about "theoretical" interpretation of experiments, just simple knowledge in general. In order for something unknown to become known, it has to process through a subjective mind. Whether that process takes a half of a second or a half of a month, the process itself is Philosophy. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true.

Can you elaborate? Can you give some example of 'knowledge', that then is interpreted by philosophy? Where does that leave theory building?

On 10/11/2017 at 1:17 AM, Gees said:

Well, if you think so, I am sure you will make an argument and explain why you think so.

I don't see it, and Bertrand Russell was a well respected philosopher. I don't like to say that any respected philosopher or scientist is wrong, without a good reason

Well, this is the bon mot by Russell:

Quote

"Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know"

We still have no idea what dark matter is. Should we ask philosophers? I am pretty sure we should not. Let physicists and cosmologists try to find out. It is an empirical question, so it is a scientific question.

OK, I took the effort to find out in what context Russell said this. It comes from 'Unpopular essays', Chapter 'Philosophy for laymen', page 24 (here a link where you can download it as pdf)

Quote

A man might say, with enough truth to justify a joke: "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know"

It stands in the context of the idea that all of science was called 'philosophy' in antiquity and the middle ages, and that at the moment parts of it became empirically based theories they became science. Of course this feeds the idea that in the end nothing is left for philosophy. But pity enough this has nothing to do what philosophers are doing today. So you cannot apply Russell's use (in a historical context) to the present situation.

And Russel is definitely positive about philosophy (page 33)

Quote

 

It is not to be supposed that young men and women who are busy acquiring valuable specialized knowledge can spare a great deal of time for the study of philosophy, but even in the time that can easily be spared without injury to the learning of technical skills, philosophy can give certain things that will greatly increase the student's value as a human being and as a citizen. It can give a habit of exact and careful thought, not only in mathematics and science, but in questions of large practical import. It can give an impersonal breadth and scope to the conception of the ends of life. It can give to the individual a just measure of himself in relation to society, of man in the present to man in the past and in the future, and of the whole history of man in relation to the astronomical cosmos.

By enlarging the objects of his thoughts it supplies an antidote to the anxieties and anguish of the present, and makes possible the nearest approach to serenity that is available to a sensitive mind in our tortured and uncertain world.

 

 

Edited by Eise
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 9:03 AM, Gees said:

Science with all of it's facts is nothing but disassociated bits of information without purpose or point.

You call established theories 'bits of information'? Fits to what I stated before. Science are the facts and their interpretation in theoretical frameworks. This kind of interpretation is still science, not philosophy.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eise said:

You call established theories 'bits of information'? Fits to what I stated before. Science are the facts and their interpretation in theoretical frameworks. This kind of interpretation is still science, not philosophy.

I have been trying to find the foreward in a book I have where the author states

The Scientific Method is the collection of data about the real world and its organisation in a rational structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now