What Philosophy IS and What it IS NOT...

[Mentat]

First, This is what Philosophy IS:

The pursuit of Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding.

This is commonly known, and shouldn't need to be brought up, but some people just aren't getting it.

Every single Forum on the PFs (except for General Discussion, PhysicsForums Feedback and Announcements, and PhysicsForums Chat) is devoted to some branch of Philosophy.

That means that Science, Religion, Politics, Pseudo-Science, etc are all branches of Philosophy (because they are all ways that one can pursue Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding).


Now, This is what Philosophy IS NOT:

Philosophy is not just musing about what could be or might be. Yes, this can be part of pursuing Philosophy. However, some believe that that's all Philosophers do - muse, ponder, make wild speculations, etc. This is not so, and is a degrading assumption.


But then, what is the purpose of a Philosophy Forum, if all of the Forums are about Philosophy?

Answer: The Philosophy Forum allows us to: 1) Discuss any of the branches of Philosophy, from outside of the bounds of that field (e.g. I can discuss the pros and cons of Science, in the Philosophy Forum, without being subject to any of the assumptions that Science makes); and 2) Discuss any branches of Philosophy that are not covered by the other Forums - like Logic, for example (also, some things are just Philosophy, and don't belong to any sub-sets, but to the Grand Set itself).

[wuliheron]

Magnificient, well said is not enough. Mentat, you have a way with words....

[Alexander]

Mentat, you did not even notice how from CORRECT presumption:

Originally posted by Mentat
First, This is what Philosophy IS:

The pursuit of Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding.

This is commonly known, and shouldn't need to be brought up, but some people just aren't getting it.




you made many INCORRECT conclusions.


Notice, that a philosophy is a "pursuit of Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding" and NOT knowledge, wisdom, and/or understanding itself (knowledge/wisdomunderstanding itself is called physics, mathematics, astronomy, geology, biology, etc). Philosophers themselves define a philosophy as "love of wisdom", and NOT wisdom itself. Philosophy is a humanitarian discipline, in contrast to natural sciences.

Basicly philosophy is somebody's unsubstantiated OPINION (usually called "school of thought").

Because philosophical education does not include education about nature(= natural sciences), philosophers usually quite poorly undertand nature's working (=math, physics, astronomy, QM, chemistry, etc) - they practically never, for instance, predict something correctly about nature. Thus, they constantly watch latest discoveries in astronomy, physics, math, quantum physics, etc and adjust (or create) school of thoughts accordingly.

I know a philosopher (faculty in very visible university) who tried to prove to me that Zenon paradox (rabbit passing a turtle) is unsolvable. He simply did not understand that infinite series can have finite sum. My attempts to explaine the difference between the number of terms in sequence and the sum of sequence failed due to lack of formal mathematical education about limits on his part. Still, he has plenty of publications, frequently attends (with presentations) professional meetings, and is actively teaching fella (by the way, deeply believer).


Wake up, philosophy divorced natural sciences long ago (~ 2 millenia), and since then became exactly ... just musing about what could be or might be, ...that is all Philosophers do - muse, ponder, make wild speculations, etc.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Alexander
Mentat, you did not even notice how from CORRECT presumption:


Wake up, philosophy divorced natural sciences long ago (~ 2 millenia), and since then became exactly

I agree with Mentat. And so does anyone else that has been properly educated on the matter. Natural sciences are a branch of philosophy.

[BoulderHead]

Alexander,
Basicly philosophy is somebody's unsubstantiated OPINION (usually called "school of thought").Philosophy is distinguished from mere opinion in that your opinions need to be supported by good reasoning. When someone spews forth some utterance that they will not, or cannot, support with good reasoning, that would be opinion. Philosophy being defined as ‘the love of wisdom’, etc. does not change by a philosopher coming to a wrong conclusion, which seems to be in effect what you are claiming when you bring the sciences into the argument. I think a philosopher shouldn’t just pop out of a cave, glance left then right, and shortly thereafter decide he has solved the great mystery of the universe by uninformed ‘reasoning’ power alone, but I also believe that philosophy is not quite as dead as you believe it is either.

Maybe it’s time for another ‘Why is a philosophy highly subjective’ threads…[:D]

[Kerrie]

without the pursuit of knowledge, we would have no education or understanding of how anything works...philosophy asks why, science answers why...

[Dissident Dan]

Alexander, you are right on a lot of things, but you are dead wrong in your definition of philosophy. Mentat has a great post. If philosophy was just musings, etc., then why do universities have a class called "Philosophy of Science"? I think that you are buying into the pop-culture definition of philosophy.

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex - I agree, there was obvious errors in Mentat's post.

Mentat - You are incorrect about your definition of Philosophy. While you have chosen one of the many derived definitions, you use one that is out of use, is out of touch, and not applicable.

Here are the definitions of philosophy based upon the 3 leading dictionary services as of this years publications. These definitions were each in every of the 3 sources:

1. A system of values by which one lives

2. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry

4. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology

Most of these are nothing like what you stated. And the one(s) that is has wording which makes it completely different from what you said.

In short, I have never but extremely rarely (and incorrectly) heard of your definition.

1. Number one is in the sense that one would publich are state their "philosophy". The imposition of this kind of philosophy on to others is what we call politics.

2. Notice that number 2 is similiar. The difference is the word "intellectual". Science doesn't involve intellectualism. Science uses EMPIRICAL means, not intellectual means. A momumental difference.

3. Very similiar to number one.

4. Philosophy in it's strict sense. As tied to logic, and involving "intellectualism" and "wisdom" rather than intelligence, empirical data, and knowledge.

Again, I've never heard anyone with scientific (or otherwise) credibility use your definition.

To me it sounds like an attempt to save philosophy in a world of science, like those who try to mingle creationism with evolution just to try to save (and intigrate) religion into science.

Not saying it's you whose doing it, most likely it's you who is the victim.

As you know mentat, I mean no offense. I merely attacking the statement with evidence of 3 sources!

[LogicalAtheist]

The pursuit of Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding.

This is commonly known, and shouldn't need to be brought up, but some people just aren't getting it.

Every single Forum on the PFs (except for General Discussion, PhysicsForums Feedback and Announcements, and PhysicsForums Chat) is devoted to some branch of Philosophy.

That means that Science, Religion, Politics, Pseudo-Science, etc are all branches of Philosophy (because they are all ways that one can pursue Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding).


I thought I'd point out better, the errors here.

You include "knowledge" in the definition. I have yet, in my career nor in the 3 previously mentioned definition sources, seen this word anywhere near philosophy.

It is the defining property of science, which is distances from philosophy.

As for saying it's commonly known, apparently my highest credible sources do not agree. See above my definitions. No such definition is mentat's is mentioned. The only one is similiar but lacking the word knowledge. And all 3 use this word in science definition.

Mentat's definition immediately to me appeared to be an attempt to boost philosophy to keep it "hip" in a world of science.

I'm not claiming this was his intention, as I doubt he cooked the definintion up himself, him being one who seems to stand on the shoulders of others, like I.

However, if we remove my definitions and look at it alone, we see his further relationship that "pseudo-science, religion, science etc.." are all philosophy, because they "pursue" knowledge, wisdom understanding.

Firstly, pseudo-science doesn't pursue any of these, neither does religion.

Let's assume even further that indeed these two things do pursue those three terms.

Then, how viable and "purposeful" is philosophy if it is a pursuit (of what does not matter) which carries under it's wing pseudo-science, which is the secondary enemy to science, which is not only also under it's wing, but is as well the knowledge itself, without the pursuit?

In other words, not only is philosophy then the house of two enemies, but it is also a strucutre which bares two systems which defy eachother?

Furthermore, the primary enemy of truth (not because of it's nature but because of it's popularity) is religion. And thus how strict and viable is a system which encompasses two systems, one of which has taken the truth and raped the other of it's false claims?

Why, if mentat's definition and applications were true, would one want any more part in philosophy than pseudo-science or mythological superimposition?

However, while I've attacked mentat's post, I remain that this definition is at least DEAD. Although I know of no time when it was alive and well. It certainly doesn't seem well to me!

[drag]

Greetings !

I'd define philosophy as the mist that
surrounds all of our knowledge (like
units in a computer war-game [:D]) - the
vague boundary areas dealing with the
connections of what's "visible" with the
unknown "outside". I say vague because
once a philosophical argument is discovered
to have a direct connection to our data it
becomes a part of science rather than philosophy.
We view only what is visible to us without
knowing all and yet we have no idea if there's
an "all" at all or what it might be. Philosophy
is the connection we attempt to make between the
known and the unknown.

Doubt or shout ! [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

I'd like to point out that what Alex and LA are espousing is unsubstantiated by science. In other words, they are promoting a philosophy that philosophy sucks. Rather humorous really. [g)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Magnificient, well said is not enough. Mentat, you have a way with words....

Coming from you, that means a lot. Thank you.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Notice, that a philosophy is a "pursuit of Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding" and NOT knowledge, wisdom, and/or understanding itself (knowledge/wisdom/understanding itself is called physics, mathematics, astronomy, geology, biology, etc).


Yes, Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom/knowledge/understanding. I know this. However, you are wrong about calling wisdom, knowledge, or understanding synonymous to physics, mathematics, or any other branch of science. If science were knowledge itself, the of what use is the scientific method? Yes, a scientific Law or Theory may be considered a piece of knowledge, but not Science itself.


Philosophers themselves define a philosophy as "love of wisdom", and NOT wisdom itself. Philosophy is a humanitarian discipline, in contrast to natural sciences.

Basicly philosophy is somebody's unsubstantiated OPINION (usually called "school of thought").


Again wrong, I suggest that you get some textbook on Philosophy, and learn an actual Philosopher's definition. Honestly, would I ask a layman to tell me what a Theory is (for example)? Obviously this would be foolish, because "theory" is a scientific term, and is best understood by Scientists themselves.


I know a philosopher (faculty in very visible university) who tried to prove to me that Zenon paradox (rabbit passing a turtle) is unsolvable. He simply did not understand that infinite series can have finite sum. My attempts to explaine the difference between the number of terms in sequence and the sum of sequence failed due to lack of formal mathematical education about limits on his part.


Yes, you are a different kind of Philosopher than your friend at the University. So what? So you are skilled at a different branch of Philosophy than a person who has devoted himself to the full set (as opposed to any sub-sets, like Science), what does that tell me about Philosophy itself?


Wake up, philosophy divorced natural sciences long ago (~ 2 millenia), and since then became exactly

Then why do Scientists still get a PhD?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Kerrie
without the pursuit of knowledge, we would have no education or understanding of how anything works...philosophy asks why, science answers why...

Good point.

As I said in my first post, Philosophers belong to the Grand Set, as opposed to any othe particular sub-sets, and thus ask the questions, while leaving the answers to those confined within the sub-sets. It's like wuliheron and others have brought out before, asking the questions (or "the mystery itself) is what is of true importance, while answers are for those who believe that answers are necessary (which are the ones who would immediately deny the existence of paradox, uncertainty, and mystery).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex - I agree, there was obvious errors in Mentat's post.

Mentat - You are incorrect about your definition of Philosophy. While you have chosen one of the many derived definitions, you use one that is out of use, is out of touch, and not applicable.


Well, I hope you're ready to point out my obvious errors.


2. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.


And this is the one that was in the Dictionary of Philosophy, too. It (along with number 4) is the one I was using.

The other two are based on common usage of the term. You should try looking up "theory" in leading dictionaries. They will give you the Scientific definition somewhere in there, but they crowd it out with "common-usage" definitions.


Most of these are nothing like what you stated. And the one(s) that is has wording which makes it completely different from what you said.

In short, I have never but extremely rarely (and incorrectly) heard of your definition.

1. Number one is in the sense that one would publich are state their "philosophy". The imposition of this kind of philosophy on to others is what we call politics.


Yes, but this is a common-usage term, much like when someone says "I have a theory on this matter", when in fact that have yet to rigorously test any hypotheses.


2. Notice that number 2 is similiar. The difference is the word "intellectual". Science doesn't involve intellectualism. Science uses EMPIRICAL means, not intellectual means. A momumental difference.


Any intellectual person would recognize both the merit and the limit of empirical means.


Not saying it's you whose doing it, most likely it's you who is the victim.

As you know mentat, I mean no offense. I merely attacking the statement with evidence of 3 sources!

I know you mean no offence, and I also know that you will take what I have written in reply seriously. I have at least that much faith in you.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Firstly, pseudo-science doesn't pursue any of these, neither does religion.


Tell that to someone who believes in them, and you'll see that that is exactly what they attempt to do. Take Christianity, for example. A Christian believes that they are attaining accurate knowledge and wisdom from it's only true source, Jehovah God himself. Just because you don't happen to believe in Him, doesn't mean that they are wrong (it actually may be unfalsifiable), and it doesn't mean that they are not pursuing knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, in their own way.

Until you realize that your commitment to Science is as binding as that of a typical theist to his God, you will never understand Philosophy


Let's assume even further that indeed these two things do pursue those three terms.

Then, how viable and "purposeful" is philosophy if it is a pursuit (of what does not matter) which carries under it's wing pseudo-science, which is the secondary enemy to science, which is not only also under it's wing, but is as well the knowledge itself, without the pursuit?


As I've already pointed out, Science cannot be the knowledge itself, otherwise of what use is the Scientific Method? (See my response to Alexander.)


In other words, not only is philosophy then the house of two enemies, but it is also a strucutre which bares two systems which defy eachother?


So what? "Religion" bares many contradicting beliefs "under it's wing" - as does science (just take the contraversy between "string" and "point-particle" theories, for example).

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Alexander, you are right on a lot of things, but you are dead wrong in your definition of philosophy. Mentat has a great post. If philosophy was just musings, etc., then why do universities have a class called "Philosophy of Science"? I think that you are buying into the pop-culture definition of philosophy.

"Philosophy of science" ? Never heard of that. What is it?

[BoulderHead]

http://www.indiana.edu/~philsci/

http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/lps/home/

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Kerrie
without the pursuit of knowledge, we would have no education or understanding of how anything works...philosophy asks why, science answers why...

Fractionally correct.

A philopsopher, a child, a fool, - ANYONE can ask "why?". Not a big deal - one fool can ask MORE questions that 10 wise men can answer.

But guess, who ANSWERS these questions? Who fetches them, building complicated experimental sets, taking fine spectrograms of faint quazars, or struggling with long mathematical equations?

(Hint: SCIENCE does).

So, please don't tell that asking questions is important - any fool with no education and without lifting any finger can do that.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
http://www.indiana.edu/~philsci/

http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/lps/home/

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

Excellent post, thank you!

As everyone can see from the publications in professional "Philosophy of science" magazine, it is not a scientific journal, but discussion about sociology (problems of society), about debating each other personal opinions and sloppy interpretations of mathematical and physical relationships (paper about Boltsmann statistics). Just exactly what I said philosophy is about.


Second link is about history of science and third link is sloppy description of how science works.

So, turns out that philosophers of science do not even know science.

And this is understandable - working knowledge of science is not required by their job description, because a philosophy is HUMANITY - subjective discipline of opinions, not of facts as science.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
http://www.indiana.edu/~philsci/

http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/lps/home/

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

BH, you know Alexander's mystical views. Why do you encourage him to carry on about them on the philosophy bulletin board?

[drag]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Alexander,
Philosophy is distinguished from mere opinion in that your opinions need to be supported by good reasoning. When someone spews forth some utterance that they will not, or cannot, support with good reasoning, that would be opinion. Philosophy being defined as ‘the love of wisdom’, etc. does not change by a philosopher coming to a wrong conclusion, which seems to be in effect what you are claiming when you bring the sciences into the argument. I think a philosopher shouldn’t just pop out of a cave, glance left then right, and shortly thereafter decide he has solved the great mystery of the universe by uninformed ‘reasoning’ power alone, but I also believe that philosophy is not quite as dead as you believe it is either.

Maybe it’s time for another ‘Why is a philosophy highly subjective’ threads…[:D]
I think that the "right" philosophy is a temporary
concept discribing the approach which can survive
any scrutiny by any argument and any reasoning
known at the time of this proccess taking place.
And I'm talking about any reasoning and not just
those systems we deduce from observation because
we probably can not know any absolutes about
observation and hence can't rule out any
reasoning as non-real. Of course, all of the above
is also based on a type of reasoning and hence only
probabalistic. [;)]

Doubt or shout ! [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
2. Notice that number 2 is similiar. The difference is the word "intellectual". Science doesn't involve intellectualism. Science uses EMPIRICAL means, not intellectual means. A momumental difference.


You must have an odd definition of intellectual. From webster.com:

1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect
2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect


Rational and using intellect are two very important characteristics of science. Intellectual and empirical are not terms in the same category--like big and orange. You can't say that something is not orange because it's big. Mentat pointed out that it takes an intellect to realize the value and limits of empirical data.

And can you say that Einstein didn't use his intellect in coming up with the theory of relativity?


The most all-encompassing,yet concise set of definitions for philosophy that I can come up with are as follow:

1) A philosophy is a set of beliefs and/or guidelines. Beliefs are things that you hold to be true, whether logical, scientific, religious or nonreligious, true or false. For example, belief in the supremacy of science is a philosophy. Belief that we should do good because god will reward us is also a philosophy.
2) Philosophy (as a noun without an article (the, a, etc.)) is search for and spread of knowledge. The word "philosophy" literally translates "love of knowledge".'

You see, philsophy is not a defined set of beliefs, rules, etc., but the word philosophy is a description of certain types of mental processes.

[Alexander]

That is exactly what a philosophy is about - set of BELIEFS.

Science does not use beliefs. It operates with facts and logic instead.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Alexander
A philopsopher, a child, a fool, - ANYONE can ask "why?". Not a big deal - one fool can ask MORE questions that 10 wise men can answer.

But guess, who ANSWERS these questions? Who fetches them, building complicated experimental sets, taking fine spectrograms of faint quazars, or struggling with long mathematical equations?

(Hint: SCIENCE does).

So, please don't tell that asking questions is important - any fool with no education and without lifting any finger can do that.


Hahah! Wonderfully said. I felt how this statement touched me, and matched my feelings exactly!

You captured the uselessness of philosophy! Bravo bravo!

[LogicalAtheist]

Mentat - What one uses a given system for (religion etc...) isn't as important as what the system itself is for.

Those systems, religious mythology, pseudoscience etc..., aren't designed to give truth. The former is merely stories, and the latter is a lazy attempt at truth, but not one fueled by a true desire for it.

As far as understanding philosophy. While you may have used an old world definition, there's a reason definintions and terminology changes.

Your definition serves no real purpose now, as the idea of philosophy has been smashed by science.

As Alex put it, if philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, or the "why", then any fool can pursue something or ask why.

I can pursue becoming God, pursue ruling the world, becoming a billionaire, and ask any question no matter how stupid.

But this has no value, it doesn't matter. Philosophy doesn't matter. It's miniscule in comparison to the power of science. The answers, not the pursuit but the reaching of the goal.

Furthermore, to say that philosophy asks why, doesn't point out it's not the only thing that asks why (and it's certainly not the best thing that asks why).

Science asks why, it's call a hypothesis. But while it asks it also answers. Philosophy just asks, asks anything at anyone, it is the pursuit, but makes no claim to reaching the goal - and it never does.

mentat said: "So what? "Religion" bares many contradicting beliefs "under it's wing" - as does science (just take the contraversy between "string" and "point-particle" theories, for example)."

Ah, but we have a difference. (a given) religion is merely confined to the pages of a book. Exactly as it says, so is in this world of this religion. If a contradiction exists, and the religion itself (the text) doesn't conclude the contradiction, the contradiction forever exists.

Science is WAY different. Science has contradictions. But science isn't the pages of a book, it isn't a publication finished at set in stone forever. Science is in reality. And science scrutinizes itself for the correct answers. It attempts to fix it's contradictions.

You're comparing the pages of a book, to the dynamic world of reality. It's like comparing a painting to a football game.

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex said: "And this is understandable - working knowledge of science is not required by their job description, because a philosophy is HUMANITY - subjective discipline of opinions, not of facts as science."

Heh, Alex, can you see the "philosophers" getting mad? One called you "mystical". Ha!

Oh well, like you said, any fool can ask why to anything. It requires no work, no real thought, no intelligence, no knowledge. Answering it requires the best work, the best thought, the highest intelligence, and knowledge of the universe.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is exactly what a philosophy is about - set of BELIEFS.

Science does not use beliefs. It operates with facts and logic instead.


Alex. You and me think similiarly. I like this. I read here and see you say the identical things I would. So instead of me saying them, I'll just compliment you!

You put philosophy in it's place.

As an oldworld terms, it's the cause of humans asking why before they had the ability to answer the question.

In the new world terms, philosophy doesn't exist. only A PHILOSOPHY. Which is of course ones publicated set of views as to how given sytems of their world exists.

When one takes their philosophy, and (unfriendily) decides to say it is the truth, rather than opinion and POV, and forces it upon others, this is what we call POLITICS, and a given political agenda.

This is what BUSH does for example, he acts as though we all see things identically, or that if we don't see it and he does, we must be wrong. And so he forces his views onto the world.

A religion is a given mythological text which includes a deity. other mythologies that don't include deity's are not religious.

When one takes a given religious mythology, and superimposes it on to reality. they have created their own philosophy.

Now, one usually bends the RM a bit into their own fitting, so they have unique philosophy. A religious philosophy.

When one imposes this philosophy onto others, it's called a gain politics.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is exactly what a philosophy is about - set of BELIEFS.

Science does not use beliefs. It operates with facts and logic instead.

You must have just skimmed my post. Belief doesn't necessarily have anything to do with faith. Belief in science is a belief. All it means to believe is to hold something to be true. When this is based on facts and logic or not is irrelevant to the definition of belief. Science uses lots of beliefs, such as the belief that we can learn about our surroundings using experiements.

Also, you haven't come up with a rebuttal to the philosophy of science point.

I bet that you believe that there is no such thing as a god. (I do, too.). Science can never prove this, only provide evidence. Empirical science can disprove the existence of a particular, well-enough-defined god, such as the judeo-christian one, but not a god in general. However, logic can and does.

[Les Sleeth]

I hope no one minds if I repeat one of my favorite (if simplistic) definitions of philosophy: Philosophy is thinking about thinking.

Philosophy has been instrumental in establishing the science, so it seems the broadly educated person should know that most universities teach the philosophy of science. Do a Google search Alexander using “philosophy of science” as the search parameter, and you’ll get hundreds of hits, many of them from universities.

Science is based on applying a method that employs various logical techniques including hypothesis, deduction and inference. All these were worked out, including the principles of empiricism as a whole, by philosophers. So this is how philosophy has contemplated “how to think in scientific investigation.”

But philosophy is broader than science because it asks how does one think logically about ethics, society, God, and anything else which is meaningful to humanity.

I too think Mentat’s post is a good one. But based on the definition of philosophy as the rules for thinking about things, I must disagree with him a bit when he says philosophy is the “pursuit of Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding . . . That means that Science, Religion, Politics, Pseudo-Science, etc are all branches of Philosophy (because they are all ways that one can pursue Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding).” Here I believe Alexander is correct that science would be the actual pursuit, while the philosophy of science establishes the proper rules for thinking during scientific pursuit.

Likewise, all those other areas of thought are just that -- thought. I don’t see how a “thought” can be the truth. If reality is the “truth,” then the best a thought can do is to accurately reflect the nature of reality in one’s thinking. In that sense it assists the “pursuit of Knowledge, Wisdom, and/or Understanding” but it is not the pursuit itself. That pursuit, as the philosophy of science has been so effective at establishing, is in the experience of reality (i.e., not merely thinking about reality). Thought is just the assistant to experience because it is experience that brings actual knowledge, wisdom and understanding about the nature of reality.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Alexander
That is exactly what a philosophy is about - set
of BELIEFS.

Science does not use beliefs. It operates with
facts and logic instead.
Indeed, that is the case. The problem
arizes when you attempt to view science
as a whole and apply the same reasoning
to it that you use "within" it.

Live long and prosper.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Indeed, that is the case. The problem
arizes when you attempt to view science
as a whole and apply the same reasoning
to it that you use "within" it.



You mean "facts and logic" method? OK.

Facts: science works (and, say, religion, or Santaclausism does not).

Logic: use science.

[Hurkyl]

Science does not use beliefs. It operates with
facts and logic instead.

That is half correct.

It operates with logic and things it calls facts, but one still has to believe that logic and the system of labelling statements as facts are the "right" way to do things.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
You must have just skimmed my post. Belief doesn't necessarily have anything to do with faith. Belief in science is a belief. All it means to believe is to hold something to be true. When this is based on facts and logic or not is irrelevant to the definition of belief. Science uses lots of beliefs, such as the belief that we can learn about our surroundings using experiements.



The word "belief" has two quite different meanings:

1)faith without proof. This is what science does NOT use.
2)opinion. Science uses opinions on the following basis. If certain opinion has NOT been substantiated by anything yet - then it is called a hypothesis. If the opinion has been substantiated by logic (math) then it is called a theory. If the opinion has been substantiated by math and observations - then it is called proven theory.

There is interesting distinction about meaning of a word "theory" in US and in elsewhere outside US. In US a hypothesis is often called a theory, but elswere else - only proven by logic/math hypothesis (and often only after proven by observation) is upgraded into a "theory" rank.

[BoulderHead]

I might add that we need to look to philosophy to see the origins of logic. As far as I'm aware, logic is still a branch of philosophy.

So, could it be that a bunch of stupid @$$ philosophers kept tossing around 'opinions' until something useful came out??

[Alexander]

Does philosophy still use logic today?

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Alexander
Does philosophy still use logic today? Yes, it is concerned with the second of two ways an argument can fail. That is; do the premises fail to establish the conclusion.

[drag]

Originally posted by Alexander
You mean "facts and logic" method? OK.

Is the use of logic, logical ? [;)]

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Alexander

There is interesting distinction about meaning of a word "theory" in US and in elsewhere outside US. In US a hypothesis is often called a theory, but elswere else - only proven by logic/math hypothesis (and often only after proven by observation) is upgraded into a "theory" rank.

That is irrelevant to the discussion. (Anyway, I think that the distinction should be made between scientific groups and unscientific groups, not the USA and elsewhere).
-----------------------
I do not think that those links posted by BoulderHead adequately reflect Philosophy of Science. Do a web search, or, better yet, contact a university.
-----------------------

Also, some people may call themselves philosophers and be mostly illogical. That does not represent what philosophy is. No person's set of beliefs or arguments represent what philosophy is. No person's method of gaining knowledge represents what philosophy is.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
I agree with Mentat. And so does anyone else that has been properly educated on the matter. Natural sciences are a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy was at first a "pure" science (in the time of Plato), and not based on scientific observation.
Science was born out of philosophy. Since then science went it's own way. Dialectical materialism is an attempt to reunite philosophy with science.

[LogicalAtheist]

Natural Sciences aren't branch of philosophy. That's simply not true!

Philosophy is just a little concept.

Science came when humans were able to answer questions they asked. Philosophy served the purpose of pondering unintelligently the "why" before we could answer.

Now science took the "why" and made it part of the essence of science; the scientific method.

Even the section pf philosophy which is called LOGIC barely exists. Most of logic is expressed in pure math, and other parts are merely a guideline to writing papers that are "logical".

Philosophy is 100% dead. It's serves no purpose anylonger now that math and science have done it's job so much better than philosophy ever could.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Natural Sciences aren't branch of philosophy. That's simply not true!

The natural sciences are based on a set of principles which are their “philosophy.” However, you are right to say the application of natural sciences is not philosophy (unless one were using the results to support some philosophical stance).

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophy is just a little concept.

Now there is an informed statement if I ever heard one. Better do your homework boy.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Science came when humans were able to answer questions they asked. Philosophy served the purpose of pondering unintelligently the "why" before we could answer.

So you are saying all that Socrates, Leibnitz, Descartes, and the like ever did was ponder unintelligently? Einstein wrote some philosophy, was that unintelligent pondering?

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Even the section pf philosophy which is called LOGIC barely exists. Most of logic is expressed in pure math, and other parts are merely a guideline to writing papers that are "logical".

Do you know how easy it is to prove the absurdity of your statement? Go to Google, type in “study of logic,” or some similar search terms, and see what you get on the dozens of pages it gives you. Besides the fact that logic is taught at every major university in the world, you will also notice its specific application to music, archeology, computer science, and every other area of thought and investigation people take seriously.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Now science took the "why" and made it part of the essence of science; the scientific method.

You are at a science site, have you noticed? Why preach to the converted? Most of us here love science. You are acting like you are the only one who knows anything about or appreciates science, what’s up with that? Scientists and science lovers are allowed to have interest in philosophy, or anything else they choose, without having to endure boorish lectures from someone doesn’t even know what he is taking about.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophy is 100% dead. It's serves no purpose any longer now that math and science have done it's job so much better than philosophy ever could.

If philosophy is dead, then why is it the most robust area at PF, and PF is a science site??? Again, why don’t you do a Google search using the word philosophy and see what you get. I have the latest edition of the “Writer’s Market,” and guess how many publishers are still looking for philosophical manuscripts. Publishers need to make money, and they don’t make money if what they publish what doesn’t sell.

It may be true that the area of classical philosophy using only a priori reasoning is dead, but plenty of people are still asking “why,” and searching for answers. When is the last time math or science told us anything about ethics? Science is helping us understand the physical word, which a good thing, but for a great many of us that isn’t enough.

See, you have a problem, and that is you think whatever you believe, or what you think is important, is or should be true for everyone. This is an example of the subjective fallacy you criticize, and yet you are the biggest offender of it I have ever seen! Like when earlier you said, “I have never but extremely rarely (and incorrectly) heard of your definition. . . . Again, I've never heard anyone with scientific (or otherwise) credibility use your definition.” So, because you, the ultimate expert in philosophy, haven’t heard of it means it isn’t so, right?

The truth is, you don’t know much about philosophy, or religion, other than you don’t like it. You speak as though you are an expert, yet half the stuff you say isn’t even true. It seems the only reason you post here is to act superior, which is why, speaking only for myself (obviously), I wish you’d take it somewhere else.

[Dissident Dan]

Dude, if philosophy is dead, then you must have no point to what you post, no method of organizing them, and no method of making a point. Because a person has a philosophy to posting, unless he or she just doesn't give it much thought and posts whatever comes to mind. A person has a philosophy to writing.

BTW, "philosophy" doesn't mean trying to assign a purpose to life or anything like that. The practice of philosophy is basically trying to find truth through reasoning (correct reasoning or incorrect reasoning). You can't get any more specific about what one tries to get from philosophy without getting into subcategories.

Examples of philosophy:
-Trying to understand Newton's first law.
-Wondering about the meaning of life
-Deciding if vengeance makes sense
-Deciding that science yields better results than religion
-Wondering why god did this or that (which, of course, assumes that god exists)

And I could go on and on. The point is that a wide variety of thoughts and pursuits fall under the category of "philosophy", and condemning philosophy is self-defeating because believing that philosophy sux is a philosophy, which I, as well as others, have pointed out in several threads.

[LogicalAtheist]

Dan - you're making reference to the wrong definition of philosophy.

You can say someone has a "philosophy" to doing anything. That's all fine with me as that's just another twisted definition of philosophy, and an application of it into everything.

I'm talking about a different definition as seen above.

Sleeth - I suspect you are speaking to me, but you're on block, maybe I didn't tell you but I won't see your messages...sorry.

[Dissident Dan]

Well, there is no point to debating, but we can't even agree on what philosophy is. Some philosophy is all the stupid thinking, and some say otherwise.

[Tom Mattson]

I thought the issue of "what philosophy is" was pretty straightforward. Why all this back-and-forthing?

Go to any website devoted to philosophy, and you will see that it is typically taken to be the following:

1. Logic
2. Epistemology
3. Metaphysics
4. Ethics
5. Aesthetics

[LogicalAtheist]

Tom - and I suppose asking the pope what catholicism is is a good idea?

Those tied up into mythology aren't the best judges of it!

The problem with philosophy occurs between what philosophy WAS and what is IS NOW.

Let's see of this clears it up:

1. The listing tom gave is definitely considered to be widely accepted.

2. But none of those things exist in reality, except Logic.

3. Logic of reality is completely captured by mathematics. Thus logic is purposely because math is more powerful and more universal, being not in a language at all

4. Philosophy originally asked why before it could answer it. Since science (the scientific method) not only asks why (and with standards of why) but it also makes a logical empirical and mathetmatical (if possible) attempt to answer it.

5. Thus we see like logic and math, science is much more powerful and encompasses the "why" of philosophy

6. Because of this, those areas of philosophy have been overrun. Just like string theory is gonna overrun alot of QM and GR because we've found a more POWERFULL system.

7. Thus, we have seen what philosophy was, and what it has become because of math and science. So today I think indeed tom is right on his list. Those things are what makes up philosophy.


Originally posted by Tom
I thought the issue of "what philosophy is" was pretty straightforward. Why all this back-and-forthing?

Go to any website devoted to philosophy, and you will see that it is typically taken to be the following:

1. Logic
2. Epistemology
3. Metaphysics
4. Ethics
5. Aesthetics

[LogicalAtheist]

1. Logic - The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2. Epistemology - The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

3. Metaphysics - An underlying philosophical or theoretical principle

4. Ethics - The study of the general nature of morals

5. Aesthetics - Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Tom - and I suppose asking the pope what catholicism is is a good idea?

Those tied up into mythology aren't the best judges of it!


What mythology? There is nothing mythological or religious about any of the 5 things I listed.


2. But none of those things exist in reality, except Logic.


How is logic any more 'real' than the others?


3. Logic of reality is completely captured by mathematics. Thus logic is purposely because math is more powerful and more universal, being not in a language at all


I don't think so. The "logic of reality" is largely inductive, and mathematicians do not have much interest in that. They are interested in deductive logic as a formal system, and proving things about it. Philosophers and scientists are the ones with interest in inductive logic and reality.


4. Philosophy originally asked why before it could answer it. Since science (the scientific method) not only asks why (and with standards of why) but it also makes a logical empirical and mathetmatical (if possible) attempt to answer it.


The scientific method is considered a product of philosophy.


6. Because of this, those areas of philosophy have been overrun.


Science and mathematics have not overrun any of those things. What scientific theory answers moral questions (ethics)? What equation gives us an account of what it means to "know" something (epistemology)? What experiment answers people's questions about the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics)? What deduction gives us an appreciation of art and music (aesthetics)?

Answer: None, on all counts.

Looks like we still need philosophy after all!

[LogicalAtheist]

I posted a statement and I didn't read TOM close enough. Stupid me, I misread.

--LA.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Tom - I got those definitions from Oxford, not a good idea to question them, as all other dictionaries are merely product sof the oxford.

Nowhere did I question the definitions. If you look closely, you will see that I am questioning what you posted.

[LogicalAtheist]

My mistake. I misread, you're right. I retract previous statement.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is exactly what a philosophy is about - set of BELIEFS.

Science does not use beliefs.

Your first (quoted) statement is an unsubstantiated opinion, and nothing more. Your second statement is just wrong, because Science is based on the belief that some phenomena can be understood to some point of accuracy, along with the belief that there is an objective Universe.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - What one uses a given system for (religion etc...) isn't as important as what the system itself is for.

Those systems, religious mythology, pseudoscience etc..., aren't designed to give truth. The former is merely stories, and the latter is a lazy attempt at truth, but not one fueled by a true desire for it.


You are dead wrong about reasoning systems, as it's use is determined by what one chooses to use it for. Besides, you misinterpereted religion. It is an attempt to gain wisdom, through belief in some kind of deity.


As far as understanding philosophy. While you may have used an old world definition, there's a reason definintions and terminology changes.


The meaning of "Philosophy" has not changed.


Your definition serves no real purpose now, as the idea of philosophy has been smashed by science.


You cannot be "smashed" by a sub-set of yourself. Besides, Scientists still get PhD's don't they?


As Alex put it, if philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, or the "why", then any fool can pursue something or ask why.

I can pursue becoming God, pursue ruling the world, becoming a billionaire, and ask any question no matter how stupid.

But this has no value, it doesn't matter. Philosophy doesn't matter.

It's miniscule in comparison to the power of science. The answers, not the pursuit but the reaching of the goal.


Science is not the "answers", it is just another way of pursuing them (just think of the Scientific Method).


Furthermore, to say that philosophy asks why, doesn't point out it's not the only thing that asks why (and it's certainly not the best thing that asks why).

Science asks why, it's call a hypothesis. But while it asks it also answers. Philosophy just asks, asks anything at anyone, it is the pursuit, but makes no claim to reaching the goal - and it never does.


You keep on stating your opinion about Science and Philosophy, without anything to back it up. This must be an emotional issue for you, because I know that you're more rational than this.


mentat said: "So what? "Religion" bares many contradicting beliefs "under it's wing" - as does science (just take the contraversy between "string" and "point-particle" theories, for example)."

Ah, but we have a difference. (a given) religion is merely confined to the pages of a book. Exactly as it says, so is in this world of this religion. If a contradiction exists, and the religion itself (the text) doesn't conclude the contradiction, the contradiction forever exists.

Science is WAY different. Science has contradictions. But science isn't the pages of a book, it isn't a publication finished at set in stone forever. Science is in reality. And science scrutinizes itself for the correct answers. It attempts to fix it's contradictions.

You're comparing the pages of a book, to the dynamic world of reality. It's like comparing a painting to a football game.

I wasn't comparing anything to the "pages of a book", you were the one who defined religion as this.

[LogicalAtheist]

Mentat...

1. You contradicted yourself. You stated that a reasoning system is determined by what it's used for. Yet you say philosophy is some old-world definition, and NOT what it is used for, today.

2. The meaning of philosophy has DRAMATICALLY changed. Not only has it changed but it's become completely DIFFERENT things.

3. Science is NOT a subset of philosophy. You are making the mistake equal to that of one assuming that because bats and birds have wings, they both come from a common ancestor.

4. Science took what philosophy attempted and did it better. Not only did it do it better, it did MORE. It asks the why AND answers it.

5. It's not an emotional issue. No one here is debating (realistically) what science is. What people are doing is not choosing weather the old-word definition of philosophy is right, and thus philosophy is dead, or if the current concepts of philosophy are right, in which case it has little or nothing to do with science.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat...

1. You contradicted yourself. You stated that a reasoning system is determined by what it's used for. Yet you say philosophy is some old-world definition, and NOT what it is used for, today.


My definition is exactly what Philosophers use Philosophy for today. There is no contradiction here.


2. The meaning of philosophy has DRAMATICALLY changed. Not only has it changed but it's become completely DIFFERENT things.


No, your definition of Philosophy, and the "common-usage" of the term are DRAMATICALLY different from what Philosophy is and has always been.


3. Science is NOT a subset of philosophy. You are making the mistake equal to that of one assuming that because bats and birds have wings, they both come from a common ancestor.


If Philosophy is the pursuit of Wisdom (as even Alexander has agreed with me on), then Science is indeed a sub-set of it.


4. Science took what philosophy attempted and did it better. Not only did it do it better, it did MORE. It asks the why AND answers it.


Science doesn't ask or answer "why" questions. It only answers "what" and "how" questions.


5. It's not an emotional issue.


And would you really admit it, if it was?


No one here is debating (realistically) what science is.


So your approach is unrealistic?


What people are doing is not choosing weather the old-word definition of philosophy is right, and thus philosophy is dead


What?! If the old-world (and current, as far as any real Philosopher is concerned) definition is correct, then Philosophy is alive and well, as are it's sub-sets.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist;
3. Science is NOT a subset of philosophy. You are making the mistake equal to that of one assuming that because bats and birds have wings, they both come from a common ancestor.I don’t see how college-folk can have this view.


Below is a link to a current college level philosophy text. You can even take quizzes, way cool;

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/076742011x/student_view0/chapter1/multiple_choice.html

From the first chapter;

….Thus, philosophy once encompassed nearly everything that counted as human knowledge.
This view of philosophy persisted for over two thousand years. The full title of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principles, in which Newton set forth his famous theories of mechanics, mathematics, and astronomy, is Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Even by the seventeenth century, then, physics was still thought of as a variety of philosophy. Likewise, nearly every subject currently listed in college catalogs at some point would have been considered philosophy….
However, philosophy can no longer claim those subject areas that have grown up and moved out of it….


That last sentence is telling.

[LogicalAtheist]

1. Give us your definition of philosophy.

2. Science is absolutely positively NOT a sub-set of philosophy. At very very least philosophy is a subset of science.

3. Science ABSOLUTELY asks "why". To say science doesn't ask "why" is absurd. Re-think that immediately!

4. Philosophy as originally used as asking "why" but never EVER answering. It only asked. Then (still before science) people began to include a why. Because they had no scientific method, there why was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY opinion. THus we have the great philosophers who wrote books on THEIR OPINION of how things work.

5. Now we have science. It ASKS THE WHY, and also answers it under self-scrutinizing means.

Science took the why and made it better, gave it a proper universal method, and also answered it.

These are irrefutable!

[LogicalAtheist]

Boulder - I don't know if you were coinciding with me or not. But indeed this sentence from the cited text says exactly what I am explaining:

"However, philosophy can no longer claim those subject areas that have grown up and moved out of it…."


Exactly. Science develop in philosophy just like a baby. But science was BORN later, and become bigger and better and smashed it's mother in the face and walked out the freakin' door.


Booayah!

[BoulderHead]

My view is more that it was conceived and birthed in philosophy, then grew up and bought it's own house.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Give us your definition of philosophy.

2. Science is absolutely positively NOT a sub-set of philosophy. At very very least philosophy is a subset of science.

3. Science ABSOLUTELY asks "why". To say science doesn't ask "why" is absurd. Re-think that immediately!

4. Philosophy as originally used as asking "why" but never EVER answering. It only asked. Then (still before science) people began to include a why. Because they had no scientific method, there why was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY opinion. THus we have the great philosophers who wrote books on THEIR OPINION of how things work.

5. Now we have science. It ASKS THE WHY, and also answers it under self-scrutinizing means.

Science took the why and made it better, gave it a proper universal method, and also answered it.

These are irrefutable!

Science does not ask "why" questions. It only asks "what" and "how" questions.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mentat
Science does not ask "why" questions. It only asks "what" and "how" questions.

Mentat - I recall you saying you're young?

I have an entire education in science.

I used it everyday in my educational career thus far.

I am still getting an education (in neurological medicine).

I use science to answer the question of "why" everyday.

So does everyone in my class, all 20,000 of them.

Saying science doesn't ask why is below the belt. It's beyond questioning.

I do it every single day. And everyday (I am required) to get the answers to every why question I ask.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Natural Sciences aren't branch of philosophy. That's simply not true!

Philosophy is just a little concept.

Science came when humans were able to answer questions they asked. Philosophy served the purpose of pondering unintelligently the "why" before we could answer.

Now science took the "why" and made it part of the essence of science; the scientific method.

Even the section pf philosophy which is called LOGIC barely exists. Most of logic is expressed in pure math, and other parts are merely a guideline to writing papers that are "logical".

Philosophy is 100% dead. It's serves no purpose anylonger now that math and science have done it's job so much better than philosophy ever could.


As I suspected. You have absolutely no idea what philosophy is. It has been becoming apparent the more you post. You really should do some study here. I recommend doing some reading. I can make some recommendations if you'd like. Because your conception of philosophy is very much the same as a laymans. I run into the same misconceptions among people who were lucky to get through high school. I myself had it back in the day.

[LogicalAtheist]

Fliption - Your insults only make me care about you less. You're on ignore.

But since I get the last word, I understand philosophy just fine. it isn't what you WANT it to be, it is what it is.

I am more than twice your age, and probably have triple or more the years of education.

One who questions my education gets blocked. Bubye forever!

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - I recall you saying you're young?

I have an entire education in science.

I used it everyday in my educational career thus far.

I am still getting an education (in neurological medicine).

I use science to answer the question of "why" everyday.

So does everyone in my class, all 20,000 of them.

Saying science doesn't ask why is below the belt. It's beyond questioning.

I do it every single day. And everyday (I am required) to get the answers to every why question I ask.

I would bet that you are answering "how" questions and not "why" questions. It's easy to see how you can get these mixed up. Let's see if I can help clear it up. Science answers "what" and "how". So it can tell us "what" something is and "how" it works. What Mentat means by "why" questions are questions about "purpose". Science does not make such judgements. Science can tell us that the universe exists and how it all works (maybe some day) but it will never tell us "why" it exists. But using the word why can be confusing because I can ask "Why is the sky blue?" and science can answer that but what it's really answering is "how" is it blue. Not why. The answer to "how is the sky blue?" would be a scientific explanation. The answer to "Why is the sky blue?" would either be 1) there is no reason or 2) blue is the creator's favorite color.

BTW, philosophy created the scientific method. It is a philosophical exercise that says "the scientifc method is the best way to acquire experiential knowledge of the world."

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Fliption - Your insults only make me care about you less. You're on ignore.

But since I get the last word, I understand philosophy just fine. it isn't what you WANT it to be, it is what it is.

I am more than twice your age, and probably have triple or more the years of education.

One who questions my education gets blocked. Bubye forever!

Lol. I was trying to offer you some help so that you will stop burdening the philsophy forum. It is difficult for any interesting philosophy discussions to take place here when you can't even understand what it is and keep railroading the forum with your hard headed nonsense. I don't think I insulted you. I certainly didn't intend to. You do your own credibility enough harm that I don't need to.

Putting people on block in a philosophy forum. LOL! Twice my age my ^**!

[LogicalAtheist]

Yes, twice your age. Yes, triple your education.

Maybe you didn't take notice of what this topic was about.

I won't take the effort to open your blocked post again.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
4. Philosophy as originally used as asking "why" but never EVER answering. It only asked. Then (still before science) people began to include a why. Because they had no scientific method, there why was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY opinion. THus we have the great philosophers who wrote books on THEIR OPINION of how things work.


This is not true. People could use logical principles well before the scientific method was ever invented.


5. Now we have science. It ASKS THE WHY, and also answers it under self-scrutinizing means.


I agree that science answers "Why?". Let's look at 2 sets of 2 questions:

a) Why are there letters on my computer screen?
b) How did letters get on my computer screen?

Both questions can be answered with the same answer.

a) How does a computer work?
b) Why does a computer work?

Both questions can be answered with the same answer.

Now, if you use "why" to exclusively refer to purpose, then "why" is not covered in science. However, it is not necessarily covered in philosophy, either. There is no requisite set of beliefs, such as the belief that things have purpose, in philosophy. It may be one's philosophy that there is no purpose, or that there is no divine purpose, and the only purpose is that which sentient beings have given.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Yes, twice your age. Yes, triple your education.

Maybe you didn't take notice of what this topic was about.

I won't take the effort to open your blocked post again.

This is just childish LA. You have no idea how old I am nor what my education is. Why must you be so insulting and arrogant? And just in case you do read this... blocking me or anyone else does nothing to us. Everyone else still gets to read our rebuttals. LOL. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't mean everyone stops laughing at you. [:D]

For anyone else reading this, please go to this thread and add your comments.
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2486

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - I recall you saying you're young?


Let's not make that an issue.


I have an entire education in science.

I used it everyday in my educational career thus far.

I am still getting an education (in neurological medicine).

I use science to answer the question of "why" everyday.


Give me an example (just one) of a "why" question that Science can answer.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
Give me an example (just one) of a "why" question that Science can answer.

Just awaiting a response to the above (quoted). Also, I wanted to get this thread back on the first page, in case someone didn't get a chance to read the posts.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally posted by Alexander
third link is sloppy description of how science works.


I'll bite. How exactly is the third link (at http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html for those who wish to see it) sloppy?

I originally created the paper as a high school project some years back, made some revisions here and there along the way. Granted, I do have some seriously overdue revisions to make, but what exactly is wrong with it? What fact does it report incorrectly?


So, turns out that philosophers of science do not even know science.


I would wager to say the opposite is true. Often times it seems that philosophers of science know more about science than scientists do (as it pertains to the system of science itself). For instance, I have heard repeatedly from various scientific writings (by scientists) quoting Popper saying that falsification is essential to a scientific theory, so that if a scientific theory cannot be empirically falsified it is not a legitimate scientific theory. While at first this might sound reasonable (as to a young science student like myself, until I was disillusioned when I read some good material on the philosophy of science) this suffers from serious problems, among them the Duhem-Quine problem preventing one to conclusively falsify a theory by empirical means. Another case of ignorance I have encountered is the underdetermination of theories and the role of non-empirical philosophical (though perhaps rational) values in theory acceptance.



And this is understandable - working knowledge of science is not required by their job description, because a philosophy is HUMANITY - subjective discipline of opinions, not of facts as science.


Philosophy does concern itself with facts, some of which science is utterly dependent upon (e.g. whether or not knowledge is even possible is a philosophical question). Furthermore, philosophy of science is a discipline that examines the system of science itself (its assumptions, limitations, structure, how it works, etc.). Of course it demands knowledge of science.

[nickdanger]

I'd like to point out that what Alex and LA are espousing is unsubstantiated by science. In other words, they are promoting a philosophy that philosophy sucks. Rather humorous really. [g)]

Come now...I believe it was Pascal who said 'to ridicule philosophy is truely philosophical".