1 hour ago, iNow said:

I accept that my being...this entity described as myself...acts in distinct ways from the environment surrounding me...That there are activities and actions with me as their locus, eminenting from within me and radiating outward into the broader cosmos.

Right. Stop here. Here is where you really have control. Limited, but you have. As I said before, life is all about control. If organisms would not somehow control their environment they would die. The least they have to do is keep the bad chemicals outside, and let the good chemicals in. You do not need control over your brain. Your brain is a way of having control. It makes no sense to dig deeper:

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It’s when I dig deeper into that “me” that the view becomes cloudy. I’m just a part of the universe and subject to chemical reactions. My sense of self and control and consciousness stem from those chemical reactions as their source.

Just as you find no 'you' in your brain, you will not find a control centre there. It is the mechanism that makes 'you' possible. But the 'you' is the whole mechanism, and you can only assign control to the system as a whole.

So it makes no sense to seek for a source of free will in the brain, just as there is no 'you' point in the brain that dictates how the chemical reactions run. That does not mean that you do not exist! If you act freely, it means you can realise what your brain is coming up with. If you want to write a contribution to this thread, you can do it. If you do not want to do it, you can leave it. But writing this I am writing to you, not to some subsystem of your brain.

If you deny free will on basis of neurology, then you consistently must also deny your existence, because there is no 'you' in the brain. And when there is no you, there is nobody to apply the category free/not-free to. Who is the 'you' that is free or not? But if you take your existence as granted, then you get it together with free will, for free. 

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why does it matter what control/free will we have if that control/free will is limited?  

Your car can also drive only 120 mph, so it is limited. Therefore it doesn't matter that it can drive at all. 

I am free to react on your posting, or let it be. I am not free to jump to the moon. I am also not able to let me like Brussels sprouts. So free will is limited. But it matters.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The best analogy I can use is, you can control where you plant a random seed but you can't control what plant it becomes. 

So therefore do not plant the seed? As I said, if you give up giving up the little control you have over your life, you will die.

21 hours ago, Itoero said:

In such a lens, you have matter between light source and observer.  Light interact with the matter. Wave function collapse states the photons interact with particles of the matter...when photons interact with particles,  they scatter.

Now you have shown very clearly to all of us that you are just making things up. I gave the pass, Swansont made the goal. The wave function of light can collapse when it interacts with matter. But nothing the like happens when light bends in a gravity field. It just follows its straight path, a geodesic, in spacetime.

I am wondering what you think about the state of your physics knowledge, sticking to your 'refraction is scattering' where several physicists here already told you x times that they are not the same. Especially when you start with such a question:

On 10/7/2017 at 4:46 PM, Itoero said:

I read the kinetic energy of a photon goes to infinity when a photon reaches c.

Every photon travels at c, and its energy is not infinite, but dependent on its frequency alone. Somebody missing such fundamental knowledge of physics tries to convince seasoned physicists that refraction is a form of scattering???

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Not certain I follow. Please clarify... That WHAT is not the relevant concept of control?

There is a kind of control that certainly exists: thermostats controlling the temperature, Google software controlling the driving of a car, animals walking to a river to drink, humans planning their next vacation, or building the LHC. What I am saying all the time is that in this concept of control, we can distinguish between free actions and forced actions (against your will).

What you are talking about when denying free will is control of consciousness over the brain. But I, just as you, see consciousness as a (very complex) function of the brain, with a lot of unconscious, causal pre- and post-processing. The examples of research you give support that view. I fully agree. But I do not agree that this is saying anything about free will. 'Free will' is an attribute that can be applied to the interactions of an organism with its environment. When an organism can act according its own wishes an beliefs, it is free, otherwise it is not.

So denying that consciousness has no control over any brain process has simply nothing to do with the question if an action is free or forced. 

So I can split my question in two points:

1. Do you agree that we have at least some control over our lives? (You in fact already said this: 'in large part you do control your life')
2. That this control has nothing to do with control of our consciousness over our brains, but only with the control of us over our environment?

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Of course, since my position on control is it's illusory. 

So your life does not change when you stop controlling it? Try. Let us know when you are close to starvation.

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

Yes, diffraction and gravitational lensing are due to scattering of the photons of light. Wave function collapse implies a wave can't change course or travel (unless in vacuum) without the interaction of its quanta with the particles of whatever medium it travels in.When quanta interact with particles they scatter.

Explain how gravitational lensing is scattering.

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m disinclined to call this free since those wishes and beliefs also are a byproduct of the same underlying chemistry, an underlying chemistry that completely shapes us. We don’t shape them from on-high, we’re not separate or above them, and my sense is that we’d have to be in order to assert either freedom or control.

Yes, I understand that you see it like this. You very eloquently showed us why you think so in your posting I cited above. But again: you did not answer my question. Don't you see the question, or are are you intentionally evading it?

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You can have control but no choice as in your thermostat analogy or you can have choice but no control as in the Harris video, neither is truly free.

What is 'truly free'? Acting otherwise then you want, independent of your wishes and beliefs, independent of what you are? But that is a chimera! 

I suggest you go to the restaurant and do not choose a dish from the menu card.

15 hours ago, Dr. Charles Michael Turner said:

Yes it is embarrassing that I a dentist has to step in and straighten out the universe of theoretical physics. Even solve the formula that Einstein said he was not smart enough to figure out and spent 30 years trying and died not knowing. Answer me this. What the hell have you been doing as your second job? I have been solving the universe. 

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, I do remember writing that, and this is a very fair criticism. I wrote the qualifier “to a large extent” in anticipation of exactly this response, and (also to a large extent) language itself fails me here. I acknowledge the seeming contradiction in my point. 

We call it “control” and we frame our will as “free,” but I cannot escape the importance of the copious evidence to the contrary.

<snap>

Theres no avoiding the conclusion that free will is an illusion once you study the underlying dynamics and neuroscience, and this IMO remains true even if I do still sometimes get tripped up with language and word choices.

Thanks for you very reasonable post. You make very clear where you are standing, and why. But... you did not answer my question!

This is what I asked:

Why do you think that on the topic of free will, that this is not the relevant concept of control?

It is essential that you see that we have two different concepts of control here. The first one is the one I was citing from you:

On 7/30/2017 at 2:56 PM, iNow said:

You don't control your death, though in large part you do control your life.

This is what I described as the control an organism has over its environment, or as the control a thermostat has over the temperature in its environment.

However, in your above posting, you shift your position from the relation between the organism and its environment to the relation between consciousness and our bodily processes. What I am saying is that the latter relation is not relevant for the question of free will. The idea of free will only applies to the relation between the organism and its environment. Obviously, you do agree that we have much control over our lives ('... large part...'). There where we really have such control, i.e. we can act according to our wishes and beliefs, we are acting freely; there where we are obstructed to do what we want we are not free.

It is the organism as a whole that can act free or not. It needs some basic capabilities, that we human animals obviously have, and maybe some higher non-human animals as well: the capability to observe its surroundings, anticipate possible futures, and the causal role it plays itself in the possible actualising of a future  (in other words, it needs also a self-image).

Do you see how far this is of the Libet-kind of experiments (like the one Harris is doing in the video in the 'inner peace' thread): to do something for no reason at all? That these kind of experiments have nothing to do with the relation between the organism and its environment?

On 30/07/2017 at 2:56 PM, iNow said:

You don't control your death, though in large part you do control your life.

iNow, you remember writing this, don't you?

Why do you think that on the topic of free will, that this is not the relevant concept of control?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The illusion of time and the illusion of control are both prominent here. 

Time is very real for us. As long as you have memories of the past and hopes, expectations, and curiosity about the future time is real for you as it is for me.

The idea of 'control' is very confusing. If you mean 'absolute control', in the sense that somebody (or something) has control without previous conditions, then you are completely right. But then I also have no idea what our acting would be based on: you would have no character, you would not even be a person.

But there are less unrealistic concepts of control. Take a thermostat as example. It controls the temperature. But it is of course a (simple) mechanical system, based on negative feedback. Now organisms are also systems that express control. Not absolute control, but they can change their environment so that it fits to their survival. 

Higher animals have the capability to anticipate the future, and act based on their expectations of what possibly might happen and what their capabilities to act are, and so to have influence on the environment they live in. So animals have control over their environment. Not absolute control, but still control.

However, it is a category error to assume that they therefore should have a centre of control in themselves. It is as if you are saying that a thermostat has no control over the temperature of the environment because it cannot change its own settings: but that is a ridiculous expectation.

So if we speak of control, we should look at the influence of the organism as a whole on its surroundings, and not for some magical control centre in the organism. And free will is based on this kind of control, not on the existence of such a magical control centre. Our actions are free when we can express our control, without being obstructed by somebody else. Harris however sticks to just denying that a magical control centre exists. He is right, such a centre does not exist. But it has nothing to do with the question if we free will or not.

15 hours ago, koti said:

I saw this a few weeks ago and as much as I didn’t like the rhetoric I couldn’t pinpoint why I don’t like it, I think Im ready now to adress this. Harris is basing his premise that we do not have free will on 2 arguments, 1. We cannot choose freely because we do not have the knowledge (of all the cities in this example) and 2. We are biased by our experiences (having sushi in this example) Up untill this point I see these arguments as completely false because I don’t think the definition of free will should include knowledge or experience factors. I chose Mogadishu as my first city (just because Im to go there in a few weeks time) and chose Wroclaw as my second city (because of reasons) and both my choices where based on reasons...does these reasons mean that I don’t have free will? This is what I think Sam Harris is saying.

In fact Harris anticipates your argument, by telling about psychological experiments where people give reasons for their choices, but the researchers know it is something else (having a cold or war glass in the hand is an example gives): so the reasons we give are confabulations, rationalisations afterwards.

The example of the cities however is a very banal one. In this 'experiment' you are asked to choose something where there are no good reasons to pick one city above another. It is the same with the famous Libet experiments: people are asked to flex their wrist at some moment for no reason at all.

The point about free will however is a different one: that we can do what we want without any obstruction from somebody else. Harris sees free will as physically unconditioned free will. But that is a chimera. What free will is in daily life, is that e.g. I want to go to my work, and nobody is opposing me to avoid I get in my car and drive to the company where I work, and here I am. If somebody asks why I am driving my car, I have a very good reason: I want to go to my work. Of course you can ask further, why I want to go to my work, and after a few 'why-levels' I certainly come to the point where I have to say "Because I am who I am". But that has nothing to do with free will: free will does not mean 'to be who I want to be', but 'to act according to what I want to do'.

So what Harris is doing is defining free will as something that a priori cannot exist (at least if you have a naturalist world view), and then deny that it exists. Fact is that Harris in his pamphlet 'Free will' argues against free will, but then, when he is arguing why this does not mean that we have to give up on morality, or our penal system, he argues exactly as compatibilists do when they defend free will.

So as an antidote to Harris, here is Dennett:

At 3:25 he defines free will: the capacity to see probable futures that seem to gonna happen, in time to take steps that something else will happen instead.

At the end Dennett says a few words about the consequences, e.g. that we have to let go the concept of ultimate responsibility, of sin (which clearly shows where such ideas come from...).

And if you think about something you think now morally wrong, it can contribute to your inner peace. Feeling regret, but knowing that you were determined, you might not be too hard with your self. You can think 'I should have done otherwise', meaning: 'next time I come in such a situation I will do otherwise'.

In facts Buddhism (at least as I know it) encourages such a stance, to your self and to others. And to make the circle round: Harris is a strong promoter of (Buddhist) spirituality. See his book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. So in their practical consequences, Dennett and Harris might be very close to each other. But Dennett (and I), do not like his rhetoric. We should never forget that we should take as much responsibility for our actions as we can. In my opinion, saying we have no free will does not contribute to such a position.

Beautiful example of gravity waves:

I think it is very inaccurate. Relativity describes gravity as the curving of spacetime, the rubber sheet only shows spacial dimensions (and neither one represents time).

This video shows it much better, I think. Closer to what GR is really saying, and still understandable:

(I think I posted it already a few times, but maybe you did not see it yet?).

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

I tried to answer your post several days ago, but lost my response half way through.

That is highly frustrating. Often I give up when such a thing occurs...

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

You divide it by subject matter, the empirical; I divide it by methodology, procedure.

These are of course not independent. And I think I do not know of a 'philosophical methodology' that is also not used in science: logic, valid proofs and argumentations, clarity of concepts, striving for consistency, for unifying theories etc. 

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

1) How does one go about formulating a premise if they are not allowed to use the empirical which would include observation and/or experience and also evidence and fact?

2) How does one go about determining if said premise is a reflection of something real, or if it is just imagining?

3) What is real?

1. 'Premises' in philosophy are found the way we think. That needs a kind introspection ("Why do I assume this is true? How did I come to the conclusion this is true? Was the way I got to this conclusion valid? etc.

2. If you own thinking (or the way you think others think...) is the starting point of philosophy, then the border between 'real' and 'imagining' becomes at least vague.

3. That is a philosophical question 

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

If you can answer all three questions, and give examples, without using the empirical, then I will consider that the empirical may have nothing to do with Philosophy.

If you hive our ways of thinking (which includes erroneous thinking...) to the empirical, then you are right. But I think there is a distinction between thinking about the world, and thinking about thinking. 

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

Spinoza's ideas have been compared to the Vedanta tradition of India

But Spinoza did not compare modern scientific thought with Vedanta. But that is what (amongst others) Capra is doing in his 'Tao of physics'. But he takes a very esoteric stance on QM, that not many physicists share (e.g. consciousness determines what exists by observation). This is what you find in 'Quantum Enigma' too. See here (pdf) for a devastating critique on the book.

Quote

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

That was my question. And you answer with 'consciousness'. Which I think is a bad example to make your ideas about facts, theory building and interpretation clear, because these 3 are highly intermingled in the topic of consciousness. Please give simpler example using established science, with theories that are accepted. What are there the facts, how did the theory building proceed, what was the role of interpretation (and maybe of philosophy)?

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

Russell's statement is a summation given for the understanding of laymen, and as such it is true.

Are truths different for different groups of people? And Russell himself describes his bon mot as 'with enough truth to justify a joke'. Justifying a joke needs less than justifying truth.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

I don't really care if it is right or wrong, or if it is relevant or irrelevant to the times. I just care if it is true.

??? Can it be wrong and true??? Please explain.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

No. I did not at any time call "established theories 'bits of information'". You are putting ideas together that don't belong together and making me wonder if you are truly a philosopher.

If you can present you ideas with clarity, we can start philosophising. I am trying to understand what you are saying. Until now I do not have a clear picture of how you see facts, theory building and interpretation in science. So I really hope you can clear this up.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

Every philosopher that I have ever met, or read about, has a passion for truth (1) and an ability to recognize it (2).

(1) Every academic should have a passion for truth. But in philosophy maybe not in the way you would like... (I am not sure if I need it to say here, but philosophy is not science...)

(2) That would be great. But I am afraid I have to disappoint you... Philosophers should be trained thinkers, being able to understand complex texts, complex arguments, and on the other side be able to present his own ideas as clear as possible. But that is still not the 'ability to recognise truth'. But it can help.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

This kind of study and testing has resulted in reliable information that is so valid, it was impossible to know before Science formed. But this is also a weakness, as these "bits" have to be reorganized and reformed into whatever they were beforehand. 

So you think we know what protons are, what neutrons are, what electrons are, but do not know how they come together to form atoms? Again, can you please give clear and unambiguous example? I think you view of science is a bit naive: science 'reorganises the bits' in theories.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

Although there are some parts that can be helped along with the scientific method, a large part of these studies are a combination of Science and Philosophy.

I suspect you call finding hypotheses that explain the facts philosophy. I think that is just part of scientific work. But that will become clearer if you can explain your ideas more precise.

The Forum is terribly slow. 

And sometimes it doesn't even answer correctly.

But good to know that the forum is Linux based. ;-)

3 hours ago, reerer said:

There would have been no question regarding the Apollo 11 lunar landing, if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance

From here:

Quote

 

The Passive Seismic Experiment detected lunar "moonquakes" and provided information about the internal structure of the Moon.

The Passive Seismic Experiment This experiment studied the propagation of seismic waves through the Moon and provided our most detailed look at the Moon's internal structure. The Apollo 11 seismometer returned data for just three weeks but provided a useful first look at lunar seismology. More advanced seismometers were deployed at the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 landing sites and transmitted data to Earth until September 1977. Each of these seismometers measured all three components of ground displacement (up-down, north-south, and east-west).

 

Bold by me.

And the reflectors still 'work'.

BTW I noticed you are arguing about science everywhere: about Maxwell's equations, quantum physics. How do you explain that all technology based on these works? What is the source of your extreme skepticism?

OK, war of the quotes:

Quote

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

Dennett.

TAR,

It seems you do not see in which context the article is written, even if the author is very clear about it.

The article is meant to argue against the theist outcry: "Without a God we have no objective basis for morality anymore; morality would become just 'do what you like'!."

He argues this in 2 ways: the first, short, way is that commands given by a powerful person do not form the basis for morality. The second, longer, one is that we have very well an objective basis for morality even if we do not believe in any God. After he laid this out, he shows how many arguments against a secular and objective morality are wrong.

So he does not argue against God's existence: he takes it granted that He does not exist. His argument however is for following proposition: there is objective morality, and we do not need a God for that.

On 10/12/2017 at 1:23 PM, tar said:

I did read the article, and I understood his arguments and the arguments of Derek Parfit.  My comments came after understanding, and finding weaknesses or contradictions or unrequired lines of reasoning, in their arguments.

It is difficult to discuss the article if you do not mention the weaknesses, contradictions or unrequired lines of reasoning, and why they are weak, contradictory or not required. Just saying 'I see it differently' does not do right to an argumentative philosophical text.

Just now, studiot said:

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

Exactly.

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.

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.

 

14 hours ago, tar said:

Funny to me, that a humanist is in possession of the answer, yet still looks for some objective verification.  Some ideal residing in Plato’s heaven,  or derivable from logic. 

...

So I reject arguments that seek to prove that morality is objectively true, without God, because God is just, in one take, the putting of our individual judgements into a collective basket that we can refer to as a human, an unseen other, that we wish to please.

Lindsay gives arguments against your position, so without countering these arguments you are just stating your position. That's fine, but it is not a philosophical argument in this way. 

I think you did not understand what Lindsay means with morality being objective. Objectivity of norms is not the same as objectivity of facts. It seems to me that you fall in the pit of 'if it is not factual true, then it is subjective'. Compare: 'if it is not raining, then the sun is shining'. In this case you just forget a third option, e.g. that it can be cloudy. So I suggest you read the article again, and find out why Lindsay thinks he is justified to call morality objective. ('Objective' of course does not mean we have established the complete field of morality.  'Objectivity' in science also does not mean we already know everything. It means we have a touchstone with which we can argue about what statements or theories are true.)

15 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

Philosophers have always seemed to choose morality as a favorite subject.

Not aware of that. Why do you think that? Any sources for this?

15 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

If no real answers can be found in discussion or study of philosophers no ,matter who they are,  it has to be admitted that philosophy as applied to morality is nonsense  and probably most philosophers would admit this.

So we should stop trying to answer all questions that cannot be answered scientifically?

And what is 'philosophy as applied to morality'? What is morality without philosophy (in my opinion it would be moral dogmatism...).

And most philosophers would admit that? Again: sources? Or are you just venting some prejudices you have?

For another take on this read this article.

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...

Wikipedia