Strange

It is a conclusion from a process of rational thought (you know, philosophy). As already noted, there are many flaws with this simplistic argument. (See the Wikipedia page for a summary of the more obvious problems.) Well, thank you for finally answering this question. Why, exactly, do you dismiss solipsism as "unsound speculation"? It is a problem that has challenged philosophers for thousands of years. And yet you are able to simply dismiss it. So things you agree with are sound and things you disagree with are unsound? Is that correct? Or, can you tell us how anyone can determine what is sound or unsound ? I don't disagree with that. But... (1) you do not seem able to do this and (2) this does not mean that philosophy is always correct, just that it (should) always be a rational and logical process of analysis. But you seem to be unaware of the basics of logic. Also logic is only half the equation. You need to also consider the truth or otherwise of the initial premises. Have you read about the difference between valid and sound arguments yet? http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

If they can change, then they are not absolute truths. Some philosophers would argue that we don't exist, or at least we cannot know if we exist. (See also solipsism.) And, according to you, they must be right because philosophy is always correct. I understand you perfectly. I am just trying to explain why you are wrong. Descartes. But many people have pointed out the flaws in this argument.

My point was that everyone might agree it is a coconut (of that species) until someone else comes along and points out that they are wrong, that in fact it is not a coconut but a different fruit altogether. Suddenly your "absolute truth" is not so absolute. This is rather like the "black swan" effect. Everyone might think that all swans are white because they have only ever seen white swans. So their absolute truth is that "all swans are white". And then one day a black swan comes along. Suddenly, their absolute truth turns out to be false. (Like that one about all fish living in water.)

Except we don't. At different times and places, people have had different theories about these things, based on what they knew at the time. There are still quite a number of people who are convinced the world is flat. They can use any evidence to the contrary to support their theory. There are people who insist that the Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe. Although this is probably wrong, it is impossible to disprove. But it is also irrelevant. You cannot use the existence of some notion of truth to argue that therefore philosophy is always correct. Apart from anything else, this leads to contradictions. You have chosen something we know to be factually wrong. This is closer to what you call "absolute truth". And your premise that "fish live in water" is not logical. A premise cannot be "logical", by definition. Only the conclusion derived from the premise can be described as logical. This suggests that you are using the popular definition of logical as "something that makes sense". In fact, your premise is not even completely true. There are fish that spend time on land. You seem to have a very ill-defined and confused idea of what separates opinion from unsound speculation. Maybe you should look up the definitions of valid and sound logical arguments. Perhaps you should also read some of the philosophical literature on the meaning of "truth". It is not a simple concept (not even a single concept). And then a botanist comes along and tells you that it is not a coconut but instead the similar looking fruit of a different tree.

Even if it does, you have to apply some rational thought to the ideas you have, in order to filter out the nonsense. I am reminded of the story of someone who kept having amazing ideas in his dreams, that contained the secret of the universe. But they faded from his mind within minutes of waking. He decided to keep a notebook by his bed to write down his thoughts as soon as he woke from a dream. In the morning he found his notebook full of things like "the smell of peanut butter pervades all".

The idea of logical argument was developed by philosophers as a way of rationalising / formalising the "laws of thought". If you want free-wheeling thinking with no logic or restrictions or basis in reality, then you probably want writers on drugs. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/16/drugs-history-literature

An important role of philosophy is to challenge "common sense" by analysing the ideas. So people don't have a common view on these things. For example, some people feel they need to be near the ocean: it is comforting, a source of food and beautiful. Other people think of it as cold, dangerous and a thing to avoid. Some people will happily drink water from a river or a faucet. Others will insist on bottled water. Homer famously described the ocean as the "wine dark sea" whereas today we are more likely to say it is light blue or green. So, I tend to agree: it is nonsense; you are just spouting your opinions instead of making rational arguments.

I know that is what you meant. I asked how they are different. How would you tell which is which? Presumably, you think there is some absolute difference between them, not just a matter opinion. Some people like broccoli and some don't. They may reach different conclusions based on this. Is this unsound speculation or opinion? Some people think god exists and some don't. They may reach different conclusions based on this. Is this unsound speculation or opinion? What about solipsism (the idea that only your mind exists)? There is not (cannot be, by definition) any evidence either way. What is the "correct" or "true" view on this? https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Solipsism

How are those different? Some people like broccoli and some don't. They may reach different conclusions based on this. Is this unsound speculation or opinion? Some people think god exists and some don't. They may reach different conclusions based on this. Is this unsound speculation or opinion? What about solipsism (the idea that only your mind exists)? There is not (cannot be, by definition) any evidence either way. What is the "correct" view on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

I would say it is not about being correct or not, but about asking questions and analysing the answers. Asking better questions, in other words. That is why it plays an important role in defining the scientific method.

Yes. But that's not the point. The fact that relative truths (differences of opinion) exist means that philosophy cannot always be correct.

That doesn't make sense. 1. There is no apparent connection between the existence of truths (whether absolute or relative) and a philosophical argument being correct or not. 2. If there were such a connection, then how could the existence of relative truths guarantee correctness, when different people will disagree on what is true or not. 3. Some philosophers argue that god exists other argue that god does not exist. According to you, because philosophy is always correct, they are both correct. But this violates a fundamental law of logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle It is a fundamental flawed argument, but it is hard to say if that is because it is not based on facts. I think an insistence that philosophy should rely on "facts" is naive and limiting. A large part of philosophy is about analysing problems and asking questions. For example, thinking about "what is a fact" is an important and complex question that would need to be thought about before one could insist that philosophy should be based on them.

Is anyone saying there are limits to philosophy? Philosophers have considered pretty much everything in the past, and will continue to do in future.

I didn't say that. But people disagree about these. There is no absolute definition of these. Some people do not think that murderers have a right to life. Some people think that certain social groups do not have the same rights as everyone else. You tried to use the fact that there are some absolute truths to claim that therefore relativism is wrong. You are now saying that there are some absolute truths, but not all truths are absolute. Therefore relativism is correct. See, a good philosophical argument s one that can change your mind! Well done.

You give one example of a system within which formal propositions can be defined to be true. Not really applicable to anything outside mathematics. You give a second example which is pure opinion. Even if everyone sees the moon as round (for one day a month) that does not mean that all truths are absolute. So it cannot be used as an argument for universalism. Definitions of beauty are not universally agreed. Not all moral and ethical choices are universal. Some people like jazz and others hate it. People disagree on what is right or wrong. Different countries have different definitions of "natural" rights.

And according to my understanding, there is no absolute truth. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect. Natural rights are a human invention and vary from place to place and from time to time. (I have provided exactly the same amount of evidence and logic as you, therefore my position must be just as correct as yours. Therefore philosophy cannot be used to prove an argument correct. Only evidence, in other words science, can do that.)

Yeeess... *Baffled ny this apparent non-sequitur* I. Can't. Even. There are many interpretations of quantum theory. They are all supported to exactly the same extent by exactly the same evidence. That is why they are interpretations and not different theories. Or maybe you just need to take more and better measurements to confirm of disprove the hypothesis.

Pretty much, yes. It could be. But there is no way of knowing. Are realists correct or are idealists correct? No. The difference is that science tests its models against reality (or, more precisely, against what we can measure). Philosophy doesn't. So we can show that a scientific model is correct or not. You can't do anything like that for a philosophical idea. This depends on what you mean "explanation". For example, planets exist because of the rules of physics. Is that what you mean by "explanation"? It is a very different sort of explanation from your building example. You have moved the goalposts. Even if everything has an explanation, that does not mean it has a reason. A building has a reason: it was built as a house or factory or whatever. But I don't think planets have a reason, they are just a consequence of the way physics works. Philosophy doesn't know any such thing. Your argument is fallacious. Huh? Those measurements and observations are the evidence.

If it evidence based, then it would be science, not philosophy. How do you account for the fact that there are many different philosophies with different and frequently contradictory ideas? They can't all be right.

Perhaps we can say that "philosophy should be based on logic". But, as you say, inductive reasoning is arubaly less reliable at serving correct results. That is my point. From a false premise you may get a false result, even if you use correct logic. It is important to understand that logic is purely about the form of the argument not the truth of it.

Logic does not tell you if something is correct or not. It just tells you if it is logical. In other words, whether the conclusion follows from the initial starting points. So, for example, a classic example of a logical argument is: 1. All humans are mortal 2. Socrates is human 3. Therefore Socrates is mortal We know that if the premises (1) and (2) are true then the conclusion (3) must also be true. But we can use exactly the same structure to say: 1. All animals have four legs 2. My dog is an animal 3. Therefore my dog has four legs. That looks plausible but, using the same logic again: 1. All animals have four legs 2. Socrates is an animal 3. Therefore Socrates has four legs. So we can see that using a valid logical argument with a false premise means we can't say whether the conclusion is correct or not. I disagree. Logic is a very important component of philosophy. Formal logic is one of the first things taught in a philosophy course.

Science is always more advanced than philosophy because its ideas can be tested. It s therefore useful while philosophy is never useful in a practical sense. There is no way of knowing if philosophy is correct or not. As there are as many different philosophical ideas as there are philosophers, and many of those ideas are contradictory, it would seem that it is impossible for it to always be correct. It doesn't make quantitative and testable predictions. So you can never know if it is accurate or wildly wrong. When it is not testable, perhaps. Neither science nor philosophy can tell us anything about reality. And it is philosophy tells us why that is the case.

Context, for those(*) who had no idea what this was about: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/does-new-glass-battery-accelerate-the-end-of-oil (*) Me.

Does your idea explain anything?

That is an ... "unusual" definition of complexity. Does it have any connection to any of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity#Topics ? But if it is accepted, what use is this definition? Can you calculate anything? Can you explain anything that we don't currently understand? Does it tell us "why there is energy"? Does it tell us anything?