Jump to content

Is there such a Thing as Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?


joigus
 Share

Is there such a Thing as Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Is there such a Thing as Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?

    • All philosophy is useless/too arbitrary/self-serving... (all bad)
      1
    • All philosophy has interesting points to consider (all good)
      3
    • There are good philosophies and bad philosophies
      10


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Even for you, that is a pretty bold position.

It is the crux of my every argument.

There are no two cats alike so therefore it follows not more than a single "cat" can exist.   "Cats" can't exist because there can be no hard and fast definition to put all things into the categories of "cats" and "not cats".  

For instance at what exact point does a pregnant cat become "two cats"?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

It is the crux of my every argument.

There are no two cats alike so therefore it follows not more than a single "cat" can exist.   "Cats" can't exist because there can be no hard and fast definition to put all things into the categories of "cats" and "not cats".  

For instance at what exact point does a pregnant cat become "two cats"?  

Wow. It's like a 14 year old has just discovered philosophy. What next? Trees falling in empty forests? The universe created last Thursday? One hand clapping?

Maybe in a few years you can graduate to The Ship of Theseus / Trigger's Broom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, cladking said:

 I am excluding "look and See Science" and science by consensus. 

You are excluding it, and that's not a consensus. Who comprises this consensus? Not the scientific community.

 

13 hours ago, cladking said:

I am excluding all expert opinion and poorly designed experiment.   I am excluding experiment that can be interpreted in ways that don't conform to theory.   

A great deal of what we call "science" simply is not.   

Explaining observation is not "science"; interpretation of experiment is.  

In your opinion, perhaps, but stop pretending that this is widely shared.

13 hours ago, cladking said:

We can define the world as flat if we don't mind the math.   

Reductionistic science works but it might not be the ONLY science.   

Not particularly relevant to my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cladking said:

There are no two cats alike so therefore it follows not more than a single "cat" can exist. 

Read some Wittgenstein. And then some modern cognitive scientists. They've already developed the point you're trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

It is the crux of my every argument.

There are no two cats alike so therefore it follows not more than a single "cat" can exist.   "Cats" can't exist because there can be no hard and fast definition to put all things into the categories of "cats" and "not cats".  

For instance at what exact point does a pregnant cat become "two cats"?  

"There are some gray areas so all areas are gray" is failed logic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cladking

Common categories are not Aristotelian (classical) categories. The concept of cat comes from the clustering together by family resemblance of particular instances of what we call cats, not by the definition of closed (mathematical) equivalence classes. There's even a mathematical theory for the concept you're groping towards: fuzzy sets.

Overall, your discourse sounds cathartic, more than based on thought out concepts. You sound dissatisfied and you seem to want to voice your dissatisfaction. You should try some common-interest group based on emotions, rather than a scientific / philosophical battleground for your complaints.

That's my advice, anyway.

Edit: Here's an example of your "cats"

Z1h0DJ5Xp9JoQi7RMXUumA.png

Edited by joigus
Addition of diagram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2020 at 9:23 AM, joigus said:

Read some Wittgenstein. And then some modern cognitive scientists. They've already developed the point you're trying to make.

The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages. And in fact both were right and both wrong; though the view of the ancients is clearer insofar as they have an acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.

— Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 6.371-2
 
 
 
 
I could expand on this statement but, oddly enough, it would all be considered off topic.  
 
My point remains that there is good and bad philosophy regardless of whether any part of it is inductive or deductive.  It is simply irrelevant that science and/ or philosophy can be "strictly" deductive.   
 
There's a whole nother world beyond reductionism and induction but it lies outside of the way people think.   It's not necessarily better or worse but it is different and provides a broad spectrum of different perspectives.   Wittenstein apparently could see this world and arrived there principally through deduction.  
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cladking said:

I could expand on this statement but, oddly enough, it would all be considered off topic.

why?

25 minutes ago, cladking said:

There's a whole nother world beyond reductionism and induction but it lies outside of the way people think.   It's not necessarily better or worse but it is different and provides a broad spectrum of different perspectives.   Wittenstein apparently could see this world and arrived there principally through deduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Well, Sherlock what was impossible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, cladking said:

The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages. And in fact both were right and both wrong; though the view of the ancients is clearer insofar as they have an acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.

— Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 6.371-2

Wrong paragraph, wrong book. Nothing about categories there; nothing makes much sense there either in today's context.

You still sound cathartic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

why?

Just as for most people who believe all of reality behaves laws of nature, is mathematical, and reducible to/by induction, I believe none of this.   Just as they believe that these "laws" must underlie all of science and philosophy I believe that the laws are illusory and a laboratory manifestation of the logic which underlies existence itself.   Just as they believe observation, experiment, and history all support their beliefs, I believe they are misinterpreting everything and failing to see the role of language in data acquisition from the earliest times through today.   I came to Wittgenstein's conclusions largely from another direction  but more importantly I found extensive direct evidence that our perspective is not only unique but also highly limiting.  

"Science", our science, requires few definitions and axioms but all our philosophy at this time require extensive givens and premises.  For this reason philosophy often doesn't dovetail with experimental results and state of the art.  It is often irrelevant to most scientists who tend to have nuts and bolts philosophys.  Nobody cares about why an equation works but when I point out the failings and shortcomings of beliefs in laws of nature or the role of thought and language which underlie these beliefs it is considered off topic.   

"Philosophy" and applied science have  largely failed to keep up with the times and this is largely caused by the failure to build on the work of previous greats.  This failure is, I believe, the result of the inability of language to accurately reflect very highly complex inductions or complex thought.   It's impossible to build on what isn't properly understood while every listener has a different understanding.   Such problems can be redressed but this won't happen so long as we each believe we understand or so long as it is believed that philosophy is irrelevant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2020 at 7:47 AM, joigus said:

I'm testing my first poll today. I've scanned for similar topics but wasn't able to find collocations "good philosophy" or "bad philosophy".

Especially if your option is the third one, I'm very interested in your criteria, exceptions, and so on.

Thank you very much.

All philosophy is useless. What's the point? No, mathematically where are the points that make the laws of nature. Ontological questions are scientific not philosophical they can be mathematically pinpointed of course morality is subjective to benefit the dull creature who didn't understand those coordinates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cladking said:

Just as for most people who believe all of reality behaves laws of nature, is mathematical <snip>

Such problems can be redressed but this won't happen so long as we each believe we understand or so long as it is believed that philosophy is irrelevant. 

I'm not sure anyone here believes maths is reality, it's just a convenient language to describe "a" reality...

The same problems exist in philosophy (English, German, Swahili...) they all describe "a" reality.

I fail to see how such a problem can be redressed; all we can do is, continue to eliminate the impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not sure anyone here believes maths is reality, it's just a convenient language to describe "a" reality...

There are one or two people who think reality "is" math. But they are very much in the minority. Cladking just likes to pretend everyone else is wrong because it make him feel smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

All philosophy is useless.

The problem with this is that is sounds sooooo much like a particular philosophy... You simply can't escape philosophy.

Break down the word into etymological pieces and you'll understand why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are one or two people who think reality "is" math. But they are very much in the minority. Cladking just likes to pretend everyone else is wrong because it make him feel smart.

Yeah, I get that impression too; philosophically, I'm back to why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Language of itself can mislead you.

Maths too.

Experiments without theoretical analysis are devoid of meaning.

Sheer observation can be a crook.

It's a network of interrelationships, cross checks, that makes it all solid. Narrowing down the chances of being mistaken.

Cladking doesn't even seem to know what a cat is. Most people have no problem with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2020 at 10:26 AM, joigus said:

It's a network of interrelationships, cross checks, that makes it all solid. Narrowing down the chances of being mistaken.

 

 

"History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions"

 

I am not suggesting that real science is wrong about everything or anything.  I am  merely saying that science looks at everything from the same perspective which is reductionistic and dependent on definitions and axioms.  Since all ideas and all progress are individual it is also dependent on models and language for all practical purposes.  Just because 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 does not make our models correct or like one another.  Each of us has a unique model and each of us sees the interrelatedness  of scientific and mathematical knowledge but this can't make any of us correct about anything either.  

Philosophy falls by the wayside because everyone's understanding is solid, so who needs mere words to ruin the wonderful symmetry found in nature?   Of course the problem is we have no roots in anything except beliefs, language, and ephemeral definitions and meaning of language.   We have no roots except our models constructed from our interpretation of the reality disclosed by proper experiment.   "Philosophy" becomes irrelevant when our understanding is complete.   

I am saying that philosophy could contain a broader perspective if it had a vocabulary with fixed definitions but mostly I am saying that any philosophy that marginalizes individuals  is evil.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cladking said:

I am not suggesting that real science is wrong about everything or anything.

I personally don't take offence at the concept of science being wrong, even though I use my leisure time mostly to learn more about it and I've made of it my method to try and understand the world better, like most of us here I would say. I don't think science aims for absolute truth. It's not about being right or wrong beyond any doubt. It's about being more right and certain and less wrong and uncertain, and pushing the limits of doubt and ignorance. Science doesn't provide us with a magic wand to dictate ethics either. It evidences correlations, most of them of statistical nature. It sheds light on plausible causal connections, it refutes previous ill-conceived ideas. If we do that, we are in a better position to take better decisions, diagnose better, tackle evil before it happens. But this can only be achieved by adding to the structure more layers of rational thinking and open discussion.

30 minutes ago, cladking said:

"Philosophy" becomes irrelevant when our understanding is complete.   

Our understanding is never complete.

 

30 minutes ago, cladking said:

I am saying that philosophy could contain a broader perspective if it had a vocabulary with fixed definitions but mostly I am saying that any philosophy that marginalizes individuals  is evil.  

What kind of philosophy marginalizes individuals? Do you mean something like social Darwinism? It's not a universal trait of philosophy, AFAIK.

I'm guessing you've voted that there are good and bad philosophical theories...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I am  merely saying that science looks at everything from the same perspective which is reductionistic and dependent on definitions and axioms.

Not entirely true. But so what?

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Since all ideas and all progress are individual

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. When science produces a result it is equally valid whatever your personal ideas are. We all benefit from scientific progress (unless you reject it).

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Just because 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 does not make our models correct or like one another. 

Nice straw man. No one said that.

But the fact that equality can be proved, means that we can have a certain level of confidence in the consistency of models. It is then a matter of comparing that model (the map) to observations (the terrain) and refining it as necessary. 

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Each of us has a unique model and each of us sees the interrelatedness  of scientific and mathematical knowledge but this can't make any of us correct about anything either.

When it comes to science, for example gravity or evolution, we do not each have a unique model.

If you are talking about views outside of science, then, well... duh and thank you, Captain Obvious.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Of course the problem is we have no roots in anything except beliefs, language, and ephemeral definitions and meaning of language.    "Philosophy" becomes irrelevant when our understanding is complete. 

One of the roles of philosophy is to explore what the roots of belief and knowledge are. (As someone who knew anything at all about philosophy would know.) So hardly irrelevant. (And I think most people with some understanding of philosophy or science would say that knowledge can never be complete.)

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I am saying that philosophy could contain a broader perspective if it had a vocabulary with fixed definitions

Many people have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to put philosophy on a formal basis starting from fixed definitions. Some very interesting results have come from such work.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

but mostly I am saying that any philosophy that marginalizes individuals  is evil. 

Christ. Give us some warning when you are about to throw in a non-sequitur like that. I think the sudden change of direction has given me whiplash.

 

On 8/13/2020 at 2:58 PM, cladking said:

Just as for most people who believe all of reality behaves laws of nature, is mathematical, and reducible to/by induction, I believe none of this.

Please provide some evidence that "most people" believe this. 

On 8/13/2020 at 2:58 PM, cladking said:

I believe that the laws are illusory and a laboratory manifestation of the logic which underlies existence itself. 

So you don't believe in "laws" but you do believe in "logic" underlying reality. Would that be the "laws of logic", by any chance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, joigus said:

I personally don't take offence at the concept of science being wrong, even though I use my leisure time mostly to learn more about it and I've made of it my method to try and understand the world better, like most of us here I would say. I don't think science aims for absolute truth. It's not about being right or wrong beyond any doubt. It's about being more right and certain and less wrong and uncertain, and pushing the limits of doubt and ignorance. Science doesn't provide us with a magic wand to dictate ethics either. It evidences correlations, most of them of statistical nature. It sheds light on plausible causal connections, it refutes previous ill-conceived ideas. If we do that, we are in a better position to take better decisions, diagnose better, tackle evil before it happens. But this can only be achieved by adding to the structure more layers of rational thinking and open discussion.

I'm a big fan of science as well.   It is the chief means by which we can arrive at true knowledge; visceral knowledge.   

19 hours ago, joigus said:

What kind of philosophy marginalizes individuals?

Any philosophy that denies free will or the life, liberty, and happiness.In practice there are always trade-offs but this is politics, not philosophy.     

 

18 hours ago, Strange said:

When science produces a result it is equally valid whatever your personal ideas are.

Only individuals think or come up with new ideas.   Only when an idea becomes theory can  it benefit science or people.  

18 hours ago, Strange said:

When it comes to science, for example gravity or evolution, we do not each have a unique model.

Of course we do!  If our models were identical we'd come to the same conclusions and make the same predictions.  There are even sexual differences such as women tending to navigate by landmarks and men routes.  

18 hours ago, Strange said:

One of the roles of philosophy is to explore what the roots of belief and knowledge are.

Many scientists believe philosophy is irrelevant (different models).  Yes, we explore roots and meaning but most of this exploration is really uncovering language.  A perspective from outside of language can not be found easily.   Even when we look at something from a new angle or step outside the box we take language with us.  In very real ways "I think therefore I am" is the root of science but thought as we know it doesn't exist outside of language.   Seen from this angle philosophy becomes navel gazing and science just so much lint.  

 

18 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide some evidence that "most people" believe this. 

I'm surprised you'd dispute the idea that scientists believe in laws of nature.  

 

18 hours ago, Strange said:

So you don't believe in "laws" but you do believe in "logic" underlying reality. Would that be the "laws of logic", by any chance. 

Logic is logic.  It behaves no laws per se but rather just is.  Math is the same thing but is quantized rather than manifested logic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I'm a big fan of science as well.   It is the chief means by which we can arrive at true knowledge; visceral knowledge. 

If by "visceral" you mean "gut feelings" etc. then the whole point of science is to avoid that sort of unreliable "knowledge".

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Only individuals think or come up with new ideas. 

Nonsense. (And also, not what you said. But then communication your ideas clearly was never your forte.)

Most new ideas are created by groups. 

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Of course we do!  If our models were identical we'd come to the same conclusions and make the same predictions. 

So you think that if you use Newton's laws of motion to calculate the path of a projectile, you will come up with a different answer then someone else?

1 hour ago, cladking said:

There are even sexual differences such as women tending to navigate by landmarks and men routes.

That is irrelevant because we are talking about scientific models. You know, math and stuff.

(Somehow I am not surprised that you have no idea what a scientific model is. There seems to be no field in which you cannot demonstrate your profound lack of knowledge.)

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I'm surprised you'd dispute the idea that scientists believe in laws of nature.  

That is not what I said. You seem to be having problems reading now.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Logic is logic.  It behaves no laws per se but rather just is.  Math is the same thing but is quantized rather than manifested logic.  

Oh, please. You are just embarrassing yourself.

"In logic, the law of excluded middle is ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between logical thinking and rational thinking, the latter being far superior.

Both good philosophers and good scientists should be able to utilise the additional capacity of the rational mode.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.