What's is this sub-forum all about?

[Willowz]

So what goes on in this section? What kind of topics are deemed "worthy" or otherwise to be placed in this section of the forum?

For example, what does "philosophical implications" mean in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350" topic,

Also, when discussing the philosophical implications of some piece of scientific work, references are required for both the underlying scientific content as well as the resulting philosophical discussion.

 

[Pythagorean]

Philosophical interpretations of scientific theories and observations. I.e. unfalsifiable, but logically sound interpretations.

 

[Willowz]

Interpretations of what?

 

[JaredJames]

Philosophical interpretations of scientific theories and observations. I.e. unfalsifiable, but logically sound interpretations.

Can't say it better than that.

 

[Willowz]

Yes, but what are philosophical implications of anything? What do they mean?

For example,

What philosophical implications does QM have?

 

[Willowz]

Another way of putting into simpler words what I am trying to say is,

How do you know you are reading philosohpy?

 

[JaredJames]

If you don't know what philosophy is, this probably isn't the sub-forum for you.

 

[Willowz]

Can you tell me what philosophy is? When does it occur to you that this or that text is philosophical?

 

[JaredJames]

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

 

[Willowz]

So, from the looks of it. Philosophy is just about rational speculation. Just wanted to get my ducks in row.

 

[wuliheron]

Not merely rational speculation, but our interpretations as well including the meaning of words like speculation and interpretation.

 

[Willowz]

Not merely rational speculation, but our interpretations as well including the meaning of words like speculation and interpretation.

Well at the heart of it is rational speculation. The interpretations as well as meaning is derived from the context of a given phrase, word.

 

[Pythagorean]

Willowz, interpretations of QM, for instance, can be philosophical. There may be some technology or stroke of insight someday that allows us to test such interpretations (see Bell) but ther will alway be room for other interpretations that aren't currently (or won't ever be) testable.

This is as opposed to moral philosophy. Philosophy of science often pertains to the nature of space and time. Or in the whole brain-mind discussion, it's still not known scientifically how consciousness arises from matter. So lots of room for philosophy.

 

[apeiron]

Can you tell me what philosophy is? When does it occur to you that this or that text is philosophical?

Philosophy is distinguished mainly by being dependent on reasoned arguments rather than empirical evidence. It considers what is rationally or logically possible as well as what is provenly actual.

But what makes a particular text "philosophical" is that it is grounded in a context of scholarship - all the alternative views that also exist. It is rational argument connected also to the history of those arguments.

 

[ConradDJ]

I think of philosophy and science as two aspects of mental exploration.

Science says -- given everything we can imagine might be true, how do we narrow this down to what we can really count on and build on, as reliable truth? This means we need to frame what we imagine in terms of specific, clearly-defined hypotheses we can test against reason and empirical evidence.

Philosophy, for me, says -- given what we know about the world, what do we need to be able imagine in order to understand it? What new ways of using our minds do we need, what new kinds of conceptual language do we need to invent, to open up our minds to what might be true? And its procedures are much more ad hoc.

I take the state of physics nowadays as making a strong case for this notion of philosophy. I think we know pretty much what we need to know about fundamental physics, but we haven't imagined what we need to imagine, in order to understand it. We're still operating within an essentially "classical", 19th-century mental framework, even though it's clear that the world doesn't fit that framework.

 

[Willowz]

Philosophy is distinguished mainly by being dependent on reasoned arguments rather than empirical evidence.

This is confusing and interesting. If philosophy does not rely on empirical evidence, then what makes one theory more appealing interesting than the other? Or more plainly, what do these reasoned non-empirical arguments depend on?

 

[JaredJames]

This is confusing and interesting. If philosophy does not rely on empirical evidence, then what makes one theory more appealing interesting than the other? Or more plainly, what do these reasoned non-empirical arguments depend on?

Logic.

 

[apeiron]

This is confusing and interesting. If philosophy does not rely on empirical evidence, then what makes one theory more appealing interesting than the other? Or more plainly, what do these reasoned non-empirical arguments depend on?

Yes, the arguments depend on logic. And the appeal of some logical arguments can be very strong, even when commonsense would suggest there must be a flaw in them.

For example, the kinds of arguments being made in this sub-forum all the time - like physical determinism making freewill an illusion, or the believability of zombies meaning consciousness must be an intrinsic property of substance.

Philosophy of course does in the end have to rely on observation, experience, scientific findings, etc, to ground its speculations. There is an empirical basis of kind. But it can then take off on logical flights of fancy. And that is academically acceptable.

However you can also take the view that the two sides to knowing - the immediate empirical impressions and logically generalised ideas - should stick more closely together. And some people call that "natural philosophy".

 

[wuliheron]

This is confusing and interesting. If philosophy does not rely on empirical evidence, then what makes one theory more appealing interesting than the other? Or more plainly, what do these reasoned non-empirical arguments depend on?

Logic and introspection, although at a physics website such as this empirical evidence and logic are used much more often.

 

[UMBERTOECO]

Philosophy is the opening of a human mental space started by the ancient greeks in which anything that has been said or is being said by no matter who ,can be questioned as long as the argument used is logically sound and in accordance with what is treated today as facts or as realistic hypothesis based on what is known as facts.The factual framework of reference is to be found in what is known broadly as Science.Therefore if I could argue successfully in your academically-minded eyes ,that "anything-that-pops-into-my-head-philosphy"should be part of this sub-forum,you would have to accept it.

 

[UMBERTOECO]

I feel i have to improve upon my description:Philosophy is the opening of a human mental space started by the ancient greeks in which anything that has been said or is being said by no matter who ,can be questioned as long as the argument used is logically sound and WHOSE PREMISSES are in accordance with what is treated today as facts or as realistic hypothesis based on what is known as facts.The factual framework of reference is to be found in what is known broadly as Science.Of course,the barrier between Science and Philosophy can be quite porous at times;an exemple is with thought experiment :where does science end and philosophy start?Can philosophy be an heuristic device to develop new scientific theories and therefore be a scientific tool and therefore be part of science?And vice-versa:can Science be a tool to develop Philosophical thinking and therefore be part of Philosophy?

 

[disregardthat]

Philosophy in its prime is criticism of use/misuse of language. Even philosophical theories often spring out from a refutation of former theories, or rather "ways of thinking", which corresponds to a certain usage of language. Radical philosophy in whatever kind consists of refuting current use of language.

 

[Maui]

Yes, but what are philosophical implications of anything? What do they mean?

For example,

What philosophical implications does QM have?

Philosophy is where you make attempts at knowing reality. Through these attempts, with the help of physicists and scientists in general, a good philosopher knows that reality and models that purport to describe reality are 2 very very different things. While models can be comprehensible, reality as a whole isn't and that's the cold lesson of merging science with philosophy. It's no exaggeration to say that everyone dies as clueless about anything as they were born. This is an example of a serious philosophical implication discussed by philosophers.

 

[-Job-]

... a good philosopher knows that ...

What's a "good" philosopher? Philosophers question, everyone else knows.

 

[Constantinos]

What's a "good" philosopher? Philosophers question, everyone else knows.

I'd say everyone knows, even philosophers, but philosophers are never certain about their knowledge. :D

Well, my opinion about philosophy is that it is the deepest level of doubt. What I mean by this is that everyone begins knowing the world based on some premises that they hold to be true. For example physicists hold that empiricism is true, or that the world is in principle knowable and can be described by mathematics. Then they set out to describe it and know it.

But philosophers doubt everything that can be doubted. Their only premises are things incapable of being doubted, something like "I think therefore I am" (or better, "there are thoughts") or that our senses or internal emotional states, or memory cannot be doubted at the moment, although they may not correspond to anything we may think they correspond. From there on, even physical reality is in doubt, and thus there are theories about idealism, solipsism or whatever.

It is from these undoubtable things that philosophers begin to construct their knowledge of the world.

Now I'm just an undergrad computer engineer, neither a philosopher nor a scientist, but from the philosophy and science that I have studied, this is what seems to me to be the case.

 

[cosmographer]

Philosophy is also a word and a marker. It makes it possible to contrapose it to other words, like science, as it was done in this thread already. Ultimately these attempts at categorization are extremely weak in the face of what people do every day. Scientists do metaphysics all the time, have to revel in the wildest fictions as a matter of course, while philosophers are bound by their evidence and constrained to remain quiet without observation. The distinctions are political and internal to historical formations. Those that argue for their purity are often blinded by words and the belief that there are underlying "logics" to any academic discipline. Many locked threads in this forum are due more to someone having internalized certain origin myths about how science|philosophy relate, than the conversation becoming different in kind from any other conversation on these forums. Having the forum here to me seems like a symptom of scientists wishing to keep living in a kind of split-personality mode. To speak philosophically =/= to speak scientifically, so you have to go here. The kind of sense it makes is internal to certain scientistic discourses, the reasons for the partition will be sought in rules of method, conceptions of what reality itself is, traditions and so on. Philosophy will be done to tell you why philosophy has to remain external to "science". It's a very queer and mangled worldview, but consequential.

 

[Willowz]

Philosophy in its prime is criticism of use/misuse of language. Even philosophical theories often spring out from a refutation of former theories, or rather "ways of thinking", which corresponds to a certain usage of language. Radical philosophy in whatever kind consists of refuting current use of language.

This looks great. But, what do you mean by "ways of thinking"? I mean, you are only limited to your own way of thinking.

 

[disregardthat]

A way of thinking might more properly be called a philosophical paradigm. In a paradigm not only collectively accepted facts (insofar there are facts in philosophy) are present, but more generally as I mentioned a usage of language. In a usage of language some terms make sense in a certain way, and other terms relate to them logically in such-and-such a way which might very well be nonsense and nonsensical argumentation in other paradigms. A paradigm is more or less defined by the usage of language it contains.

 

[cosmographer]

I think the figure of paradigm is a useful one, but it's also homogenizing and totalizing in ways that don't account well for the particularities of situated organisms engaging philosophical talk and thought. So I would go even more concrete than paradigms and use of language. To me "ways of thinking" are closely related to the texts individuals congregate around. There is no immediate need to invoke already shared ways of thinking when philosophy as done today is an eminently textual practice. The literary corpus made relevant to any situation where philosophy is done might just be as close as one gets to pinpointing "ways of thinking".

One might say that philosophy is traditional in that individuals are encultured to the words and style of thought they have come to inherit. But clearly it's easy to overstate what a book does to different people. Each "system" received goes to meet what already populates the imaginative landscape of an individual. The outcomes are chronically uncertain. So there are many different styles to think and speak philosophically and commensurabilty is in my view not so much a feature of a system of thought, but the pragmatic problem of making any textual inheritance relevant to a discursive situation. It's much more of a plaid-knitting exercise done as we go along as it is the clashing of "ways of thinking".

Of course the "love for wisdom" is structuring minds today in ways that are institutionally specific, if one is an academic. An analytic philosopher might not be nourished by a work of continental philosophy because the mind has not been paved in certain ways. The conditions of felicity of "making sense" is a highly individually and institutionally structured good. Philosophy to one is not philosophy to another, as harsh realities as that effects. Understanding another well is not something we come endowed with but something to be achieved. This forum is such a curious example of that. I feel very clearly here that different styles of speaking and different theoretical hinterlands and commitments are at work. This is not necessarily a bad thing, unless it legitimates quick judgements of sense vs. nonsense. Philosophy might be an extraordinary goal of opening oneself to perpetually making better sense than before.

 

[Willowz]

A way of thinking might more properly be called a philosophical paradigm. In a paradigm not only collectively accepted facts (insofar there are facts in philosophy) are present, but more generally as I mentioned a usage of language. In a usage of language some terms make sense in a certain way, and other terms relate to them logically in such-and-such a way which might very well be nonsense and nonsensical argumentation in other paradigms. A paradigm is more or less defined by the usage of language it contains.

So, philosophy is merely a composite of various paradigms? If so, then would you call philosophy an 'evolution' of paradigms?

 

[Constantinos]

A way of thinking might more properly be called a philosophical paradigm. In a paradigm not only collectively accepted facts (insofar there are facts in philosophy) are present, but more generally as I mentioned a usage of language. In a usage of language some terms make sense in a certain way, and other terms relate to them logically in such-and-such a way which might very well be nonsense and nonsensical argumentation in other paradigms. A paradigm is more or less defined by the usage of language it contains.

That's interesting! Is there a paradigm collectively accepted by all(or most) philosophers for thinking about certain problems? I've always thought that philosophers never agreed to anything. You say there are collectively accepted facts in philosophy. It'd really like to know these so, if you have a link that describes these facts, please share!

 

[disregardthat]

So, philosophy is merely a composite of various paradigms? If so, then would you call philosophy an 'evolution' of paradigms?

Some probably would, but I don't. I said that philosophy in its prime is essentially criticism of certain kinds of usage of language, which is perhaps what you meant by 'evolution' of paradigms.

Constantinos: A philosophical disagreement does not always consist in a disagreement of paradigms however. Furthermore, "facts" is not a proper description of what philosophers may agree upon. Rather, the agreement consists of the proper usage of terms, and how they relate to each other.

 

[Willowz]

I'm interested on what basis can philosophers criticize paradigms. I mean, that in itself requires another kind of 'paradigm'. It all seems so circular.

 

[Pythagorean]

who cares about philosophers? this sub-forum is about philosophy, which permeates all disciplines.

Most philosophy is an attempt to sort the amalgamate of assumptions that we develop through experiencing a skewed sample space (constrained spatially by the limited reach of our perceptive fields and temporally by the number of summers we've experienced). We tend to use our imagination to predict future outcomes.

 

[formal]

1) Philosophy is distinguished mainly by being dependent on reasoned arguments rather than empirical evidence.
2) It considers what is rationally or logically possible as well as what is provenly actual.
.

1) Can you give me just one example of empirical evidence that does not require reasoned argument?
.. b) (viceversa) ...do you believe in a priori knowledge?
2) what is reason (and logic(s) its codified principles), in what is it different from commonsense?

3) When you state a Law of Physics are you doing Physics or Phylosophy (Metaphysics)? remember that metaphysics is just The First Principles
... b) when you are framing a law of (meta)-Physics in (language) words are you doing physics?
4) When you give a definition in Physics are you doing Physics or Semantics ?

has Phylosphy been abjured? When? by Whom?
The Most Revered Physicist of them all wrote a book about what?,must I recall it?
...principles ...Philosophiae naturalis.

So, when you are just doing physics?

(P.S. thread "time exists?" was moved to phylosophy, then, after 57 posts, it was locked by a mentor with these words "...it is even less of a philosophical question than ...a physical one") !