Eise

Philosophers will not go away. Or better philosophy will not go away. The difference is: there might come a time that people do not want to pay an academic discipline that only strives for intellectual clarity. Of course, every science strives to intellectual clarity, so in this respect philosophy seems to be a discipline without a subject. However, every time science gets into some crisis, like the beginning of QM in the 20th century, or the methodological discussions in sociology, psychology etc, scientists are doing philosophy. They might be best equipped, better than 'general philosophers', but surely, when having fundamental methodological discussions, scientists are not actually doing science: they philosophise. Now, if somebody specialises in such fundamental questions in sciences in general, he is a philosopher. I think you are perfectly able to make the parallels for other philosophical disciplines, like ethics, social philosophy, philosophical anthropology etc. Then there is a big area that is often forgotten by scientists: daily life. As our understanding of nature and ourselves increases, questions about what the consequences for us individuals, change. These questions should be clarified, maybe answered. But as times change, these questions change, and so their answers. So there is no permanent 'body of philosophy', of definite answered questions. It is a mistake to see philosophy as a science. Philosophy is the big reservoir of intellectual techniques, of memories about how people thought about all kind of problems, a training in how to cope with intelligibility problems. It is useful, because the same kind of intelligibility problems rise again and again in a changing society. Philosophers did not develop the scientific method: scientists did. Philosophers clarified it, made it explicit. And so also made it useful for e.g. the demarcation between science and pseudo science. (Be aware: philosophy does not pretend to be a science, so it cannot be a pseudo science.) I already said: philosophy clarifies. I consider the free will problem solved, mainly by clarifying what 'free will' really means. You can start a new thread about free will if you want to...

Now that is a straw man. I would even claim that philosophy didn't invent the scientific method. If someone needs intellectual clarity.

Well, then it least has a purpose. But I do think philosophy offers more, but I already wrote that here. Let me know what you think. OK. Message taken. But then your contribution is as meaningful as e.g. this one. Physics resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on the shortcomings of our experiments, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the impossibility to know what reality really is behind our observations, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology. If you think this is absurd, then look at all the crackpot theories that are posted here or sent to physicists. You know, it is for those who think that physics tells us what reality really is behind the scenes. It only has nothing to do with what physics really is.

OK, now I see what you mean. Yes, I reacted a bit from anger here. It is my strong suspicion, that arc thinks it, but you are right, he did not state it. But if music is useful, it is in a completely different way than science. Science always has the promise of its use: technology. With technology we can change our environment, we can reach many of our goals with help of science. We can't with music. But music is more or less a value, it makes life worth living, people enjoy music. But if you mean that, then philosophy is also useful. Many people enjoy philosophy, so it is useful. Many people need philosophy to come to terms with life, to find their meaning in life. So in this way, philosophy is not useless at all. But I think arc will not come back at this topic. He just wanted to make a rant, and does not want to discuss this. If he would, he would do something useless... namely philosophy.

No, I didn't. But your answer is so unclear that I still don't know how you interpret "And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology". I interpreted: Astrology is useless. Philosophy is like astrology --> Philosophy is useless (If you like you can also take 'BS' instead of 'useless'.) If arc meant something else he should say so.

Then how do you interpret this sentence?

Beautifully written. It only has nothing to do with what academic philosophers do. Just to clear this up: philosophy is not a science. But to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.

It is hard to be humble... Here and here. See what you think. Note: I am not Doctor. How do you call somebody who finished his study, but did not write a thesis? Bachelor? Oh, man! Then you should see a doctor.

I think one example of why philosophy can be useful is to analyze why not every science can have exactly the same method and criteria for (preliminary) truth, e.g. the differences between physics and history... See the Jesus thread.

Well, at least the kind of answers people give on such questions reveal if they think only in terms of consequences, or also of allowed actions in itself. A lot of more questions arise when only this first aspect of moral thinking is handled. How does one compare consequences (an old woman is worth 10 points, y young one 30?). Do human lives have intrinsic value? Animals? etc etc. No, philosophy cannot solve these questions. But it can clarify our way of thinking, and this might influence how we think about such cases in the future. I would say, it can increase the quality of the decisions, not their contents. As you say: that is not useless.

Agree, partially. Depends a little on what you mean with 'wider implications'. But by asking this question, I have already gone full into ethics. Do you mean consequences for our acting, based on out moral thoughts. Or do you mean on how we think about similar choices based on our actual thinking? To give an example of the second idea: we can reason completely in terms of the good and/or bad consequences of our actions (consequentialism); or we can have at least some moral norms that we apply whatever the consequences (deontology). But if we are consequentialists, one can still think about the wider implications: say the consequences on the long term, involving everybody who is influenced by the action in question, or only the direct implications.

It should be clear that philosophy does not solve any scientific problem. If it did, then it would be part of a science. If it solves any problem, then it could be called an intelligibility problem. That means that philosophical problems can arise everywhere where people think. Obviously, normally thinking is no problem. Science was already progressing before philosophy tried to find out how, and why science progresses. But philosophy can clarify this by trying to find out when e.g. in science a statement or theory is accepted. And that is not the sociological question (when does a group of scientists accept a theory) but the methodological question: when is it justified to accept a theory. Such questions become important when people, or society in general, ask themselves what they should accept as truth. Methodologically philosophy is hardly important for the scientists themselves. It partly explains the disdain scientists have for philosophy. They think that philosophy thinks that it says to scientists how they should do their work. Occasionally some philosophers also really do this, which is mostly distorting for philosophy's reputation. Also in morality people know very well what to think. But to find out how they think might again be a task for philosophers. Again, not the sociological question, but the question which kind of thinking leads to a justified morality. This job is of course for ethics: to find and reflect on the criteria we use, or should use, in our moral thinking if we want to be consistent. There is also a class of problems that arise from our daily thinking. One example is the problem of free will. Where nearly all people experience they have free will, it seems that science, based on the idea that laws of nature are in general deterministic, denies that we have free will. It is a task for philosophers to show how the daily use of the concept of free will differs from the concept that scientists use, and show that there is in fact no such free will problem at all. It is all based on some wrong pre-concepts that confuse the discussion. So if there is some positive result from philosophy, it is intellectual clarity. If a problem disappears under this intellectual clarity, then it could be called 'solved'. But intellectual clarity definitely doesn't solve empirical or in general scientific problems. That is just a false expectation.