John Cuthber

OK, to start with the last of those things, Please learn that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. That I label some groups as insane, does not mean that I will label all groups as insane, does it? Have you got that now? I have pointed it out twice. next point. It is not "generalizing" to say that the Right wing have Right wing beliefs. It's pretty much tautology. OK, it's fair to say that there must be some characteristic, or group of characteristics that define someone as being "Right wing". Those characteristics include a set of beliefs. One of those beliefs is that the Right wing's economic policies are the right thing to do. (Otherwise, they would vote for someone else). However it is well documented that those beliefs have all the credibility of some sad soul who says he's Napoleon. It doesn't matter if we are talking about dragons or "trickle-down economics". So, if, for example, black people were to think that we are all going to be eaten by sea eagles, I'd say they were all mad. However, there is nothing that you can label as "a belief that all black people have which is different from what white people believe, and which is plainly factually wrong" So, (just in case you missed it the first two times) There is no reason to say that black people are insane.

"So I ask you, why is it OK to label a certain demographic, and consider them insane, for their beliefs." Good question. If an individual believes that they are Napoleon, is it reasonably to say they are insane? I think most people would say yes to that. They believe in something that's clearly not true and they continue to believe it, even after the evidence has been pointed out to them What if a group of people each think they are Napoleon (again, even after it's been pointed out that they are not, because he's dead)? Is it reasonable to label the group as insane? Strictly speaking, no. The group isn't insane, it is composed of individuals who are insane. But I think most people would still describe the group as insane. It's a distinction that hardly matters if it's a political party. If they are insane as a group, or individually, then we really shouldn't permit them any political power.

Nope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope In the real world, society really does deal with people who have lost the plot. They really do split the world into sane and insane on the basis of what people believe (what other criteria did you think they would use?) It's still not a matter of attacking people because they hold an idea. it's labelling people because they continue to cling to an idea that they should discard because it's at odds with the evidence. Now, could you please stop with the straw man about calling people insane because they disagree with me. For the umpteenth time, the people who disagree with reality get called insane.

"calling anyone you disagree with "insane" is dehuminization." Just as well that nobody did it then, isn't it. I'm calling people insane if the continue to believe things (like the existence of dragons) even after they have seen the evidence that they are wrong. It is not off- topic to point out those things where someone beleives fervently in them, and yet the veidence shows those things to be false. Would you like, rather than repeating yourself, to actually show either that the Right are not opposed to free immigration or that immigration is not good for the country? I remind you that I picked the example because other had raised it, and I showed evidence for my point of view. All you have done so far is say I'm dehumanising them by ascribing a uniquely human trait to them and said that I'm calling them insane because they don't share my views- even though I have pointed out repeatedly that that isn't the case.

"I'm saying that if you want to label half a nation insane, then you need to back it up with HARD scientific data and not based on the facts that you disagree with their positions." I'm not I'm calling them insane because they ignore evidence (and that is science, and I did cite it). Incidentally, you keep ignoring this fact and saying it's just my belief. Pointing out that the one thing it can not possibly be is "dehumanising" isn't dehumanising or propaganda. Saying it twice, even though I explained that it's wrong, without explaining how attributing a clearly human trait to someone is dehumanising, is a case in point. You ignored the evidence. Why? So, if, for example a group of people are documented as saying that they oppose teaching thinking and if the population in general believe that teaching kids to think is a good thing then, by the general rough definition of "insane" that group are insane. That's still true even if they are correct in their belief- unless thy can show overwhelming evidence for it. Insanity is a decision made, in effect, by society.

Do you understand that insanity was a perfectly well recognised concept before anyone invented psychology? For what it is worth, the correct field of expertise for deciding if someone is actually insane or not is psychiatry, rather than psychology. It hardly matters. We are not looking at some subtle trait here. What we are looking at is a wilful ignorance of the data. Are you seriously saying that you need to be a psychologist to tell if someone who believes in dragons has "bats in the belfry"? Incidentally, only humans can be sane or insane, so it's hardly "dehumanising" to call someone insane.

Well, actually, I am , in some small way, qualified to make that "diagnosis". It's a while ago, but I studied pharmacology. That field includes psychopharmacology. To do that you need to be able to distinguish those who need treatment from those who do not. There's a fairly broad set of conditions that "tick the box". In essence there are a collection of conditions all referred to as psychoses. Their distinguishing feature is that the subject believes something which normal people wouldn't. believe. So, for example if you believe that you are the queen, then most people would accept that you were not rational because all the evidence says that you are not. . If you think that another beer won't do any harm, even when it's plan that it will, then that's a psychosis too. It's not a subtle test, but it often doesn't need to be. If someone continues to proclaim that immigration is bad, even when the evidence makes it clear that it isn't, then they are in the same position as someone who thinks that they are the queen. They are insane. It's not a matter of a position I disagree with, it's a matter of a position which the evidence (stuff like that report and the fact that (in the other thread I cited, nobody was able to find Left wing Looneys") disagrees with. Who is sane or not is largely defined by the opinion of society. Society has already cast its vote on people who believe in dragons; they are nuts. And the right seems to have rather more than its fair share (or prove me wrong).

I have seen this exchange repeated a few times here "REPUBLICAN: "I think it would be wise for the US to control the flow of immigrants into our country, so that our welfare services can cope, and our industries can make the best use of their talents" LIBERAL: "Why do you hate immigrants?"" The right answer for a well informed liberal is "Why do you think there's a need to control it? It is known to be good for the economy, and it's not clear that the problems with welfare services spring from immigration rather than from cutbacks in spending- here's a report on it. http://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf Since the facts show that immigration is a net benefit to the economy, are you sure that you are not just using economic impact as an excuse for xenophobia?" But even that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that, even though they know of those reports, and they know that immigration is a net benefit to the country, the Right wing still oppose it. That's insanity.

The Right is running out of excuses http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm

Well, if you say the only problem that philosophers can solve is giving clarity, and you can't provide clarity to those threads then either you are not a philosopher or you were mistaken.

There's already a thread discussing free will http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82234-the-debate-of-free-will/ If it had been "solved" or "clarified" by philosophy (or otherwise) there wouldn't have been a thread about it in the same way that there isn't a thread about "what is 2+2?".

I was giving philosophy the "benefit of the doubt" (considerable doubt). It was a summary of this "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." If you say that philosophy achieves less than that, fair enough: I'm not going to argue. You also said "Also in morality people know very well what to think. But to find out how they think might again be a task for philosophers" As far as I can tell, that's a matter for some mixture of psychology, anatomy, physiology (possibly computer science) and a few other things- but those are all science ad it has been clearly stated (though not rigorously shown) that science isn't philosophy. That we have reached 5 pages without anyone actually answering the question "what-problems-does-philosophy-solve" rather gainsays the notion that philosophy provides clarity. At root, you say " If a problem disappears under this intellectual clarity, then it could be called 'solved'.". Name one.

What you describe as it "offering more" Is essentially the invention of the "Scientific Method" which happened some time ago. That's a problem which (arguably ) philosophy "solved" not "solves" What are the circumstances where someone says "Help! I need a philosopher!"?

Is philosophy an art and do we expect it to "achieve" anything beyond being enjoyed by some people? If it's an art- comparable in some way to things like music and sculpture- then it has a purpose, but I'm not sure it solves a problem apart from the ones put forward earlier as jokes- it may be a pleasant enough way to waste some time.

We both agree (rightly or wrongly) Arc meant "Philosophy and astrology are both useless." or something close to that. However you leapt from that to " to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.". And I pointed out that nobody had declared anything like that. Someone said that two specific things (which happen not to be science) were useless. Your idea only makes sense if, for some bizarre reason, you think that everything which is not science is philosophy (and vice versa). I pointed out that, for example, music is neither science nor philosophy. Arc didn't comment on the value of music (and nor did anyone else until I mentioned it). Yet you implied that he declared it useless (along with everything else that isn't science) As I said, it's a straw man.

"And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology." Among other things, I interpreted it as not including music. So Music is an example of something which: is useful Is not science and is not astrology (or, indeed, philosophy) Did you think you had a point?

Dear me, I would have thought that anyone daring to enter this thread would have avoided obvious straw manning. " to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong." Just as well that nobody got even close to doing that . In general it's risky to declare anything useless, when someone asks, nobody can actually show that it has a use. Incidentally, is it just me or does this remind anyone else of a child, asked a question to which they don't know the answer, saying "I know- but I'm not telling you"?

Well, I guess it's true that we would need to know what philosophical questions are. And it also seems that they are the only problems that philosophy can solve. And the whole tread;'s purpose is identifying such problems. And rather than doing so you seem to be running away. Another possibility isa that philosophy solves precisely zero problems of any note.

All those people who studied science and have got doctorates in philosophy might not agree with your rather odd assertion that "They are different areas of study. This is why they have different names. . ". Whether I can tell a scientific problem from a philosophical one is beside the point. Why would I care what the solution to a philosophical problem might be? You seem to have split all the world's problems into two groups- the ones to which we actually need solutions, and the ones which philosophy can actually solve. What use is that?

Would you like to explain that to all the people with PhDs and D.Phils in science? Also you have claimed that philosophy can solve all questions- but you have not explained how. Perhaps you could illustrate it with a concrete example. The problem I face is that I don't know which pub to go to next Friday. How does philosophy solve that problem?

I can't help wondering if the bloke is thinking "United:don't care: City"

Peter, You seem to have missed this. because your next post had nothing to do with answering the questions I asked. Would you like to try again?

I don't care where the philosophy comes from and it's silly to assume I do. What I'm asking is what it actually achieves. What has would philosophy have done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my life better if I was somewhere other than the West? Or, if you prefer What has philosophy done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my Easterner's life better?

Perhaps I should rephrase the question. What has philosophy done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my life better?