Is Philosophy crap?

[questionposter]

The fact that we think we know that science describes reality is in fact philosophy.

[You_And_I_Are_One]

Is Philosophy crap?

 

In my opinion, no. Why? While some might enjoy research which leads to solid conclusions, some rather spend their free time trying to reach a valid answer to a philosophical question, which, like mentioned before, will often be subjective.

 

A lot has already been said about philosophy which I find important, so, all I'd like to add is this: If there is anyone who enjoys philosophy, then it isn't "crap". Now after reaching that conclusion what you might want to ask yourself is "Then what is it useful for?"

 

Animals rely on their instincts to survive, and to survive, they require aliments (etc). So, you could say that instinct, is what allows animal survival.

 

In comparison with that logic, what humans need to survive, is intelligence. Knowledge. Consciousness. Philosophy is a stimulation for the mind of many. It stimulates not just the will to question oneself about philosophical questions, but it also aids one's intellectual growth. (and eventually, self-discovery)

 

So my general point with this perhaps rough logic is, if philosophy does so much, how can it be crap? Sure, it might be annoying for many, and I understand why. But It's not useless for everyone. In fact, It's probably essential, as all knowledge and discoveries affecting the present day started with questions, and I believe philosophy to be the overall search for knowledge of the unknown.

 

Although I suppose that, with the coming of science, mathematics and everything else as specific areas of study, philosophy might've indeed turned into the search for answers to questions of a philosophical nature only.

[owl]

iNow:

I don't know. I haven't ever really thought about this question. I just find philosophy a bit annoying as a general rule, at least here at SFN (think of users like Owl, for example).

 

Sorry to have annoyed you with questions like “What is it?,” while relativity, for example, has no use at all for the ontology of “What is time... or space... or spacetime?” ... as long as the conceptual framework, the coordinate system, works to support the math and the ‘new,' conceptual geometry/cosmology where parallel lines cross and the shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line ('extrinsic curvature' and all.)

 

View PostA Tripolation, on 17 March 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

So we need philosophy to ask questions. Agreed. Past this, what's a useful construct of philosophy?

 

How about, the question, "Does reality depend on observation or does the world exist ‘as is’ on its own?" Too philosophical for science?

 

If the former, lengths and distances depend on observation and vary accordingly. If the latter, varying measurements do not indicate varying distances between things, or lengths of things (like earth’s diameter or atmosphere thickness).

 

It is a very important philosophical distinction between “everything is relative” (to frame of reference) and “everything is as it is, regardless of frame of reference."

 

(No absolute implied in the latter. Just science’s challenge to “see” things as they are, from the most accurate position for observation... At rest with observed object or distance.)

[questionposter]

Philosophy is also the reason why we questioned things like religion at all, because we speculated if that was actually true or if things actually work so simply.

[npbreakthrough]

Philosophy is what philosophers do.............and from time to time,....philosophers crap.

[ydoaPs]

Mostly, I think the problem I have comes down to the premises.

 

If your arguments assume the moon is made of cheese, that space aliens probe farmers, or that water has memory, then you're doing it wrong.

 

I don't know. I haven't ever really thought about this question. I just find philosophy a bit annoying as a general rule, at least here at SFN (think of users like Owl, for example).

 

Owl should by no means be considered either representative of philosophy or competent in philosophy (or psychiatry for that matter). He tends to grab frince papers by incompetent people and run with them as though they are the very infallible words of the gods themselves. I agree with you that the lack of active users that actually know what they're talking about contributes quite a bit to the poor philosophy section of the site. I may start being more active or at least blogging once a week or so when classes let out for this semester.

 

Ydoaps is a bit of an exception. I think he's made some tremendous arguments this past year or two since he began studying more formally.

 

Indeed, I am pretty awesome. I'm fairly representative of modern philosophy. There are a few exceptions, but by and large philosophers these days tend to be materialistic and know how to use science. Empiricism is alive and well. In fact, when I write papers, they're empirically based enough that even people like A Tripolation wouldn't call them crap.

 

 

Philosophy is not non-empirical. It is a mixture of empiricism, logic and reason. Philosophers are not free to conclude that the earth is a cube. One has to extrapolate from the known and empirical facts. Still, it's all a bit of a muddle. Modern consciousness studies proudly calls itself 'scientific' yet consists mostly of people arguing for philosophical positions as if they are scientific theories. Besides, physicists are as guilty of favouring unproven axioms as are philosophers.

 

Spot on. I think much of people's issues with philosophy is from running into people to read the Cliff Notes of "The Republic" and think they know what they're talking about when it comes to philosophy.

[PeterJ]

Hey up YdoaPs. We seem to agree. The trouble is that for all its success in defining its problems and creating methods for analysing them, philosophy in the West is famous for its failure to solve any of them. Hence nobody expects anything from it except confusion, and it really does appear that all of philosophy is useless.

 

But this is not all of philosophy, just a particular school of thought, one that has produced so far, with some notable exceptions, little more that what Whitehead reasonably characterises as 'footnotes to Plato'. Because of this I sympathise with anyone who sees philosophy as a waste of time, at least as a guide to profound truths. It very often is. Indeed, the preface to the latest edition of the 'Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics' comes straight out and states that it is. A professional should know better, but an amateur cannot be blamed for assuming the author knows what he's talking about. If you want stop philosophy being a waste of time then my advice would be to never assume that anyone else knows what they are talking about, especially if they are paid to talk about it.

[tar]

A Tripolation,

 

A very scholarly philosopher friend and teacher of mine, often will warn me to "be careful" when I state a premise with questionable basis, and provide a counter example for me to muse upon.

 

Very useful.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The search for the solid premises, from which much else will follow is the nature of any intellectual pursuit. Be they scientific or philosophical, or religious ones.

 

Philosophy's work in this area is a great contribution to human advancement.

 

PeterJ,

 

As for "schools of thought". These might be a problem. After all people are not prone to accept lines of thought that negate the premises upon which their work is based.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I suppose that is why we have universities. To coordinate the schools, and iron out the problems.

 

And settle the thing on the Basketball Court?

 

Better at least, than settling it on the battlefield.

Edited March 28, 2012 by tar

[A Tripolation]

Although I suppose that, with the coming of science, mathematics and everything else as specific areas of study, philosophy might've indeed turned into the search for answers to questions of a philosophical nature only.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

So basically, yes unless it's to ponder questions science cannot address?

 

In fact, when I write papers, they're empirically based enough that even people like A Tripolation wouldn't call them crap.

 

Isn't that called science?

 

Quite honestly, I just want a discipline of psychology that is able to find the truth of the matter like the scientific method does. I am aware that epistemology allows me to see that science is the best investigative method that we have. But are there any other methods that *aren't* based in the scientific method and empiricism that give us knowledge and truths?

[immortal]

Extrasensory Perception(ESP) and Parapsychology comes to my mind for things which exist outside the scientific realm and empiricism.

[iNow]

Extrasensory Perception(ESP) and Parapsychology comes to my mind for things which exist outside the scientific realm and empiricism.

Wouldn't one need to first show that they exist at all? They currently exist only in the same way that unicorns and the tooth fairy do.

[A Tripolation]

EDIT: Quite honestly, I just want a discipline of psychology philosophy that is able to find the truth of the matter like the scientific method does. I am aware that epistemology allows me to see that science is the best investigative method that we have. But are there any other methods that *aren't* based in the scientific method and empiricism that give us knowledge and truths?

[immortal]

Wouldn't one need to first show that they exist at all? They currently exist only in the same way that unicorns and the tooth fairy do.

 

ESP cannot be positively disproved by Science and whatever evidences that are there they are anecdotal. One problem is the repeatability of ESP, even if I give you a method which shows that ESP is possible I cannot ensure you that you'll have a ESP every time you repeat that method, it can take months, years or just 15 days or it may not happen at all.

 

One need to step up to the realm to realize ESP and to demonstrate any unusual genuine phenomena it takes time since such knowledge is unpredictable.

[iNow]

I don't think you've addressed my criticism. It is appropriate to assume it does not exist until someone demonstrates otherwise. It is not appropriate to assert baseless that it DOES exist, but cannot be studied empirically. That's frankly rather stupid, and part of what I despise about philosophy.

[immortal]

I don't think you've addressed my criticism. It is appropriate to assume it does not exist until someone demonstrates otherwise. It is not appropriate to assert baseless that it DOES exist, but cannot be studied empirically. That's frankly rather stupid, and part of what I despise about philosophy.

 

The default position is not that they don't exist the default position is that we don't know. While discussing Philosophy especially metaphysical things we don't positively assert anything, it is by default understood that it falls under speculative metaphysics, no one should be allowed to discuss these issues in the mainstream science forums but it should be allowed here in the philosophy section.

 

Yes, most of what philosophers do is crap and a waste of time but it is these crap crackpot ideas which might go on to become a perfection of science.

 

In his collection Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Harper & Row, 1963), Popper writes, "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices. The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific tradition in having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude towards them. The theories are passed on, not as dogmas, but rather with the challenge to discuss them and improve upon them."

 

You say someone else, who is that someone else refers to, it has to be someone from the intellectual community and with out having a dialect how can we even comprehend what others point of views are, most of philosophy is done through dialect and not all philosophers end their ideas there, some go on to test their ideas and turn it to accepted science.

[PeterJ]

I don't think you've addressed my criticism. It is appropriate to assume it does not exist until someone demonstrates otherwise. It is not appropriate to assert baseless that it DOES exist, but cannot be studied empirically. That's frankly rather stupid, and part of what I despise about philosophy.

Hang on. Don't blame philosophy for ESP and suchlike. ESP is a scientific phenomenon if it is a phenomenon at all. Nothing to do with philosophy. It is probably thanks to good philosophy that you so dislike baseless assertions about phenomena that cannot be studied empirically. You would be a rational philosopher in this respect. You do not despise philosophy, you despise sloppy thinking.

 

As a philosopher of sorts, I would suggest that if a phenomenon is not empirically unverifiable even in principle then it might as well be a unicorn or a fairy.

 

It appears to be an essential part of the definition of a 'real phenomenon' that it is empirically verifiable, for unless this a matter of definition then the word 'real' would have no meaning as an adjective. It is only thanks to their ability to do philosophy that scientists usually hold this view.

 

It frightens me that philosophy is seen by so many people to stand in oppositon to the natural sciences. This seems to be a recent development and it does not reflect well on our schools and universities. How on earth are they teaching philosophy these days? How can this view be reconciled with common sense? Is thinking opposed to seeing? Should we observe an apple fall to the ground and draw no conclusions? Should we ban theoretical physics from wondering about the nature of time and space or how the universe began?

 

As it happens I also dislike the way a lot of philosophy is done. If this is seen to be the correct way to do it then some criticism from science is justifiable. But this is a personal choice for the people doing it, not a fault of the discipline. Any task can be done well or badly.

Edited March 28, 2012 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

If someone told me they thought that chemistry was crap I would point out the things it has given us like nylon.

Similarly, maths has given us some neat tricks with computers (ditto physics).

Even art has given us stuff to look at.

What has philosophy given us?

[Appolinaria]

Similarly, maths has given us some neat tricks with computers (ditto physics).

 

you forgot a couple;

 

allowed us to make predictions, to rationalize the seemingly irrational, to make sense of everything around us....

[ydoaPs]

What has philosophy given us?

 

Math, logic, chemistry, physics, epistemology, scientific method, etc.

Edited March 28, 2012 by ydoaPs

[John Cuthber]

Math, logic, chemistry, physics, epistemology, scientific method, etc.

If "philosophy" includes everything then it's meaningless.

[owl]

Owl should by no means be considered either representative of philosophy or competent in philosophy (or psychiatry for that matter). He tends to grab frince papers by incompetent people and run with them as though they are the very infallible words of the gods themselves....[/Quote]

 

It's a very good thing that neither astute philosophy nor valid science depends on personal opinion or "popularity." It's also good that ad hominem personal attacks carry no weight at all as valid argument.

Your personal judgments about my competence ( including psychiatry?) and that of the people and sources I quote... or your hyperbole that I "run with them as though they are the very infallible words of the gods themselves"... is, of course your personal opinion... and an example of your strategy of personal attack.

Just to put your comments in "philosophical" perspective.

 

I seriously doubt that you have ever studied the philosophical implications of the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology, for instance. So, of course, you would avoid such questions as, "Do parallel lines intersect"... as the jumping off point for that transition... with very significant effect on science thereafter.

 

Indeed, I am pretty awesome. I'm fairly representative of modern philosophy.

 

Modest too! (Me neither.)

 

Physicists like to "diss" philosophy as irrelevant to science with a strawman argument that philosophy is all personal opinion about stuff like "the meaning of life."

 

Whereas the contemporary philosophy of science considers such things as the ontology of space and time and 'what curves?' in the GR theory of gravity. Or "Are the orbital paths of the planets really 'straight lines through curved space' or, as empirically observed, actually curved (elliptical) orbits?"

[John Cuthber]

"Are the orbital paths of the planets really 'straight lines through curved space' or, as empirically observed, actually curved (elliptical) orbits?"

If you can tell the difference by observation then the philosophy is moot. The right answer is right because it agrees with reality.

If you cannot (for example, because they are mathematically equivalent) then the right answer is "Who cares?".

 

The answer to the question is "either, or both, or neither* depending on your point of view." which is not really very much use.

 

 

* for example, from my point of view, most of teh time, the most practical description of orbit of the earth is that it stays still: Martians will have a different viewpoint.

[ydoaPs]

If "philosophy" includes everything then it's meaningless.

 

 

You asked what philosophy gave us and I answered with historical fact.

 

It's a very good thing that neither astute philosophy nor valid science depends on personal opinion or "popularity." It's also good that ad hominem personal attacks carry no weight at all as valid argument.

 

Good thing I did none of that then. Thanks for showing your utter incompetence again as demonstration, though.

 

Your personal judgments about my competence ( including psychiatry?) and that of the people and sources I quote...

 

Yep, including psychiatry. Remember where I showed again and again that you haven't gotten the faintest clue about human memory and testimony? Yeah, that bit.

 

Whereas the contemporary philosophy of science considers such things as the ontology of space and time and 'what curves?' in the GR theory of gravity. Or "Are the orbital paths of the planets really 'straight lines through curved space' or, as empirically observed, actually curved (elliptical) orbits?"

 

Actually, contemporary philosophy has already answered those questions. You just don't understand math and refuse to accept it.

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

You keep saying that philosophers can not make a positive assertion.

 

And you seem rather positive that this is the case.

 

If you are right, then you are contradicting yourself.

 

If you are wrong, which I think you are, then that leaves me free to both philosophize and assert positive things about objective reality, as they become evident to me.

 

Regards, TAR

 

And of what use would philosophy be, if it did not teach us what it is we can say about the world, in truth?

[A Tripolation]

I'm still waiting on one discipline of philosophy outside of science/logics that carries any credence at all.