Is Philosophy crap?

[A Tripolation]

I often view philosophy as complete rubbish. Mindless mental musing with no goal, direction, or pragmatic capacity.

 

However, upon expressing these views, I'm often immediately attacked with the claims that science cannot exist without philosophy. That we can know nothing without philosophy. The terms epistemology and sopolism are oft thrown around.

 

As someone who understands the power of the scientific method but knows little about "proper philosophy", I may be a tad biased and uninformed in my opinion. So I'd like to ask everyone on SFN: What are your views on the field of philosophy?

[ydoaPs]

Transcendental ideas are useful, but not scientific. You can't observe cause and effect (for example) because it transcends each individual event which would be observed.

 

The very tools science uses were given to us by philosophy: falsification, logic, mathematics, etc. Science itself is a branch of philosophy (once called "natural philosophy"), but it got all uppity decided that it was special. Contrary to what many people think (including certain posters here), good philosophy is empirical. Think about the structure of logical arguments:

 

1)Premise

2)Premise 2

3)Premise 3

4)Logical manipulation of premises

5)Conclusion

 

In a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. But, what about the premises? They're either observed, derived from other premises, or assumed. Assuming premises is generally bad (except for things like conditional proofs and indirect proofs).

 

Modern philosophy and science (whether the philosophers and scientists want to admit it) are intimately intertwined.

[A Tripolation]

The very tools science uses were given to us by philosophy: falsification, logic, mathematics, etc.

 

How is mathematics philosophy?

[ydoaPs]

How is mathematics philosophy?

 

It's a descriptive generalized abstraction of how the universe appears to behave created by philosophers. It, like all areas of philosophy, has changed since its creation. In this case, it's been generalized even more. It's all about the axioms. Adding or removing axioms is how we get different types of maths (what happens if we let parallel lines cross?). We can create various types of maths that have absolutely no relation to the universe at all.

 

If your beef with philosophy is that it's not necessarily empirical, then doesn't that apply equally well to mathematics?

[Xittenn]

First order logic is rooted in philosophy that has been specialized into mathematical terms--the justification of which is purely philosophical!

[Villain]

Yes, no and everything inbetween.

 

Perhaps the easiest way to give value to philosophy is to say that it is the single thing that distinguish's humans from the animal world. One might even call philosophy 'concious mind'. Perhaps you should rephrase the question to 'Is conciousness crap?'. To which I would probably answer yes .

 

I've decided to elaborate on my statements above. As I have seen from answers to many of my previous posts there are few who relate to what I say.

 

The concious mind is something that offers humans as a species many advantages, planning would be an example of this. It does however have disadvantages when it comes to just living from day to day, by this I mean that we are exposed to questions that would have been non-existent to us had we not had conciousness. Philosophy is not an option in this regard, but is a need. We are plagued by certain questions as a by-product of concious thought and philosophy is the attempt to answer them. Its quite obvious to see my point in the religious forum, we have those trying to answer 'why' and we have those that have no need or at least less of a need to answer 'why' (agnostic or atheist). Then we have vast amounts of the population that have no need to answer 'how' (lets call them ascientist) but there are those that need to answer 'how' and we might call them scientists.

 

Our need to answer arises from our conciousness or awareness of the questions themselves and philosophy is an attempt to answer them.

[iNow]

Except, consciousness is not limited to humans, and atheists answer why questions all of the time. They simply choose not to end the search for answers to those questions as a result of baseless theological presumptions and conjectures.

[ajb]

I am unsure to exactly what my opinion is. I am not well-versed enough in philosophy to take a very strong stance. That said, philosophy is important in directing science in the sense that the scientific method is a philosophy. Being structured and clear in how you think is helpful.

 

Mathematical philosophy deals with the foundations of mathematics and logic. Questions like "what is mathematics?" and "what is the nature of mathematical existence?" are the subjects of philosophy. Also, "is mathematics invented or discovered?" comes up quite a lot. To my mind, these questions are very abstract and we have no way of testing them. These sort of questions do not seem to have much influence on how people practice mathematics. My opinion is that such things can be a distraction.

 

The exception here might be if you are very interested in formal logic. I can see more philosophical questions entering the subject. Though I am not very familiar with the subject of logic and foundational mathematics.

[John Cuthber]

Is this a philosophical question?

[dimreepr]

I have to wonder where science would be now without Rene Descartes influence.

 

(edit)

Edited March 17, 2012 by dimreepr

[Villain]

Except, consciousness is not limited to humans, and atheists answer why questions all of the time. They simply choose not to end the search for answers to those questions as a result of baseless theological presumptions and conjectures.

 

Yes my second last paragraph might be better served by saying:Our level of consciousness..., consciousness doesn't imply philosophy, but no consciousness would imply no philosophy.

 

Agnostic is probably a better term in my example.

 

Do you have anything else that you would add or highlight?

[iNow]

Agnostic is probably a better term in my example.

 

Do you have anything else that you would add or highlight?

No, it`s really not "a better term in your example." Agnostics frequently ask why questions, too. Your premise is broken.

 

Now, back on topic... Yes, I personally tend to view most philosophy as crap... Mental masturbation... A waste of time, and (at least here on scienceforums) generally rathet annoying... but YMMV.

[Villain]

Could you share some of the answers to why we exist that the atheist and agnostic's have come to please?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Villain, please stick to the topic of the OP.

[A Tripolation]

That said, philosophy is important in directing science in the sense that the scientific method is a philosophy. Being structured and clear in how you think is helpful.

 

So we need philosophy to ask questions. Agreed. Past this, what's a useful construct of philosophy?

 

These sort of questions do not seem to have much influence on how people practice mathematics. My opinion is that such things can be a distraction.

 

Why do you see them as a distraction?

 

Now, back on topic... Yes, I personally tend to view most philosophy as crap... Mental masturbation... A waste of time, and (at least here on scienceforums) generally rathet annoying... but YMMV.

 

Why do you think this? I'm trying to gain an understanding here, and I see many science-types reflecting my opinion that philosophy is rubbish. ydoaPs clearly thinks philosophy is useful. How do you respond to his thoughts?

Edited March 18, 2012 by A Tripolation

[Xittenn]

Art is crap we don't complain much about that. Philosophy is an art but for some reason it is invalidated by its requirement to be a useful art? In terms of science you've been given very specific examples of how philosophy has proven useful but you've rejected them, I'm detecting some bias in your disinterested pursuit. Are we to dismiss psychology and psychiatry as rubbish as well? How many philosophical assumptions does economics make, and how functional would it be as social science (I agree more with this guy) if we dismissed philosophical aggregation? What precisely is it that you feel is crap about a perfectly useful form of expression that relates what otherwise couldn't be?

[iNow]

Why do you think this? I'm trying to gain an understanding here, and I see many science-types reflecting my opinion that philosophy is rubbish. ydoaPs clearly thinks philosophy is useful. How do you respond to his thoughts?

Mostly, I think the problem I have comes down to the premises. Logic is great, but my sense is that philosophy suffers from the fact that that logic is generally rooted in non-empirical premises. Essentially, begin with any damned axiom you want and work from there... Well, I'd like to at least validate the axiom before I base my entire position on it. I don't see a lot of that validation happening, and the axioms are asked to be accepted a priori.

 

Also, I struggle with the general lack of conclusions in philosophy. In science, you ask a question, seek evidence, then form some conclusions... You often have to reframe the question more precisely and ask new questions as a result of those conclusions, but you still obtain hard and fast conclusions from which to work. In philosophy, you do little more than go back and forth between differing opinions or viewpoints, and there is no way to tell which is more rooted in reality and which is nonsense. It's really just opinion. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? That sort of thing... Just not my cup of tea Maybe I was put off by my existentialism classes or something.

 

I don't know. I haven't ever really thought about this question. I just find philosophy a bit annoying as a general rule, at least here at SFN (think of users like Owl, for example).

 

Ydoaps is a bit of an exception. I think he's made some tremendous arguments this past year or two since he began studying more formally. It's really a sight to behold. I think where I have an easier time with him is that he seems to more transparently recognize where philosophical arguments break down and where they no longer apply. He seems to be able to use philosophy within its proper boundaries. When people fail to do that, and they think logic is enough to refute obvious observable facts... That's usually where I shake my head and walk away feeling a bit of disgust.

[ajb]

So we need philosophy to ask questions. Agreed. Past this, what's a useful construct of philosophy?

 

I don't really know.

 

I tend to avoid falling into philosophy, maybe apart from the scientific method.

 

 

Why do you see them as a distraction?

 

Questions in philosophy do not have a well-posed methodology to really tackle them.

 

In mathematics you can argue a position (provide a proof) of a statement starting from some stated axioms. In practice there may be holes, subtleties and so on, but the idea is that one can construct an argument for the position taken that everyone will agree on.

 

In physics one can argue a position based on empirical evidence, i.e. experimental results. So you can argue your position based on these results.

 

How can you support your philosophical position?

 

The best I can think of is to argue that your position has served you well, as for instance the philosophy of the scientific method.

 

That is why I see philosophy as important, but it needs to be "handled with care". One could waste much time and effort trying to figure out questions that just have no well-posed answer. Question may have no well-posed methodology to decide what position is "correct", what ever that may mean.

 

So, as someone interested in well-posed questions with well-posed answers philosophy could be a distraction.

[iNow]

I want to thank AJB for expressing more cleanly the points I tried to touch upon within my own post.

[immortal]

Everything is rooted in philosophy, in the east we call schools of philosophy as "Darshanas" meaning Point of Views or insights.

 

Darshanas

 

There were basically 9 schools of philosophical thought in which six were mainly theistic metaphysical schools and two were atheistic(Buddhism and Jainism) schools but involved a supernatural realm or an entity and the final one was the skeptical, materialistic, naturalistic and non-theistic school of Carvaka.

 

 

The school of Carvaka -

 

O, the highly wise! Arrive at a conclusion, therefore, that there is nothing beyond this Universe. Give precedence to that which meets the eye and turn your back on what is beyond our knowledge. (2.108.17)

 

Beliefs-

 

No life after death

 

The Carvaka believed there was no afterlife, no life after death

 

Springing forth from these elements itself

solid knowledge is destroyed

when they are destroyed—

after death no intelligence remains.

 

 

Naturalism

 

The Carvaka believed in a form of naturalism, that is that all things happen by nature, and come from nature (not from any deity or Supreme Being).

 

Fire is hot, water cold,

refreshingly cool is the breeze of morning;

By whom came this variety?

They were born of their own nature.

 

 

Religion is invented by man

 

The Carvaka believed that religion was invented and made up by men, having no divine authority.

 

The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.

All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc.

and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha,

these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,

while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

 

 

Carvakas cultivated a philosophy wherein theology and what they called "speculative metaphysics" were to be avoided. The Carvakas accepted direct perception as the surest method to prove the truth of anything. Though their opponents tried to caricature the Lokayatikas' arguments, the latter did not completely reject the method of inference. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya quotes S. N. Dasgupta:

 

"Purandara (a Lokayata philosopher) [...] admits the usefulness of inference in determining the nature of all worldly things where perceptual experience is available; but inference cannot be employed for establishing any dogma regarding the transcendental world, or life after death or the law of karma which cannot be available to ordinary perceptual experience."[14]

 

While a Carvaka's thought is characterized by an insistence on pleasure seeking on one hand and Jainism is known to emphasize penance on the other, Buddhism is said to stand for a "middle way", avoiding indulgence in sensual pleasures and penance alike.[15]

 

The Carvakas did not deny the difference between the dead and the living and recognized both as realities. A person lives, the same person dies: that is a perceived, and hence the only provable, fact. In this regard, the Carvakas found themselves at odds with all the other religions of the time.

 

Rejection of the soul as separate from the body led the Carvakas to confine their thinking to this world only.

 

 

This school of philosophy is very much similar to the school of scientific method and both has its roots in empiricism.

 

The other six theistic and mystic schools discuss mainly about metaphysical and transcendental concepts and their arguments are rooted in revelations.

 

So yes, basically a philosophy which is not rooted or based either on empiricism or on revelation is a crap or simply rubbish because without practical philosophy you cannot gain any real knowledge. Theology is not about attacking science, its about knowing God not rambling about him based on blind faith.

[Keenidiot]

I view a lot of philosophy as navel gazing, but I do enjoy reading the work of certain philosophers. I view it sort of like I view good works of fiction; it's a view into someone's mind, and sometimes you can come away bettered by the reading.

[owl]

It's a descriptive generalized abstraction of how the universe appears to behave created by philosophers. It, like all areas of philosophy, has changed since its creation. In this case, it's been generalized even more. It's all about the axioms. Adding or removing axioms is how we get different types of maths (what happens if we let parallel lines cross?). We can create various types of maths that have absolutely no relation to the universe at all.

 

If your beef with philosophy is that it's not necessarily empirical, then doesn't that apply equally well to mathematics?

 

Exactly!

“What happens when we let parallel lines cross” is that we mentally kick off a whole new *model* of reality called “non-Euclidean geometry” and its resulting cosmology.

(Not arguing with the math here.)

 

Then parallel lies do cross in a mental mathematical “infinity.”

(Ignore that if they cross they are not parallel.)

 

And, even more fundamentally, the distance between two points is no longer a straight line but a conceptual line on a curved model’s surface, no longer straight because, of course, it is “drawn” on the curved surface of a conceived sphere. No more straight lines. Even planets’ elliptical (curved) orbits, *as empirically observed,* are now conceptually, 'intrinsically' straight lines in an 'extrinsically' curved *conceptual* “manifold”... of various descriptions... parabolic with negative or positive curvature, or the good old sphere as a model of space. ... “curved space”... curved empty volume... quite a concept!

(No arguing with Einstein or Minkowski allowed.)

[Marqq]

I often view philosophy as complete rubbish. Mindless mental musing with no goal, direction, or pragmatic capacity.

First, I wonder exactly what you mean by 'Philosophy', because I get the impression you mean something much more specific than this unbelievably broad term that is nearly synonymous with 'reason'.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.^[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.^[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".^[4][5][6]

 

Sorry to put the definition there, as though you didn't know what you were asking, but I want to make it clear that philosophy is a way to understand problems using a 'critical, generally systematic approach' that relies on rational argumentation. Essentially, knowledge of philosophy is merely knowledge of argumentation. If you want to make a claim against or in addition to accepted beliefs, you must argue your claim logically. Philosophy is the origin of the scientific method because every experiment is itself a logical argument.

You've got your question, whose answer will be the conclusion: "Is light a particle or a wave?"

Your hypothesis, which you expect to be the conclusion: "umm...a particle?"

Then you devise a test that can logically prove or disprove your hypothesis: 2-slit experiment (axiom: that light will behave comparably to previously observed particles or waves--inductive reasoning)

That method and the results are then recorded, forming premises: "Oh, look, an interference pattern. Wait, now it's not an interference pattern."

From which you deduce a conclusion: "Well...both, I suppose..."

In other words: Premise1(If L acts like P, L is P. If L acts like W, L is W.) Premise2(L acts like P and W) Conclusion(L is both P and W)

All philosophy does is tell us to test it with logic.

Yes, I personally tend to view most philosophy as crap... Mental masturbation... A waste of time, and (at least here on scienceforums) generally rathet annoying... but YMMV.

And what did you call it in school when you had to do homework? It's just doing the same thing over and over again to satisfy someone, isn't it? No. The practice is essential. Take mathematics-- each method you learn must be practiced, because you're not born knowing the rules. Reasoning, or philosophy, takes many examples just like math problems and teaches you how to manipulate them with various methods. Inductive and deductive reasoning are for working with much broader and ambiguous concepts than simple precise numbers (no offense, mathematicians). If A, then B. If B, then C. Hence, if A, C. Philosophy teaches us to reduce large concepts into such easy-to-understand statements as these, which allows us to remove our personal bias and judge the argument objectively. Philosophy also gives us a list of common mistakes that may lead us to a wrong conclusion; Learning to recognize such mistakes as red herrings, straw-men, ad hominem, slippery-slope and appeals to emotion is perhaps the most useful advantage given to us by philosophy.

[iNow]

Yep, but evidence and empiricism are still king. If your axioms are flawed, then your conclusions can only be correct accidentally.

[PeterJ]

Yep, but evidence and empiricism are still king. If your axioms are flawed, then your conclusions can only be correct accidentally.

True. But not really relevant. Philosophy is not non-empirical. It is a mixture of empiricism, logic and reason. Philosophers are not free to conclude that the earth is a cube. One has to extrapolate from the known and empirical facts. Still, it's all a bit of a muddle. Modern consciousness studies proudly calls itself 'scientific' yet consists mostly of people arguing for philosophical positions as if they are scientific theories. Besides, physicists are as guilty of favouring unproven axioms as are philosophers.

 

I would agree with Marqq, who speaks much sense here imo. It is difficult to find a definition of philosophy that would exclude physics and mathematics, or more generally just using ones reason to think. The 'laws of thought' used in the sciences were formalised in philosophy.

 

I'd agree also with the comment that much of philosophy is a waste of time. But a lot of modern music is a waste of time. We wouldn't condemn the whole practice of music because some of it happens to be terrible.

 

I blame much of the bad press on the job creation scheme that is professional philosophy. It gives the impression that philosophising is an endless process of going round and round in circles. It is not, or needn't be, but that's how the professors usually do it, and how they usually teach it.

 

Serendipity. I just had a short article accepted called 'Is Metaphysics a waste of time?'. My conclusion is of course not, or not unless you do it like the majority of academic professionals.

 

Philosophical analysis, the application of our powers of reason to questions of first principles and their ramifications, provides an answer to the big questions in life, but only if we let it. Most people who do philosophy strongly resist its results, and once we do that all that is possible is to go round in circles. Accept the results and there can be progress.

 

My prediction is that when a person thinks that philosophy is a waste of time it will be because either 1) they refuse to accept the conclusions of their own reasoning. 2) they haven't done much of it.

 

I think that's called a hostage to fortune.

Edited March 21, 2012 by PeterJ