Register to reply

A place of philosophy among other disciplines.

by Alexander
Tags: disciplines, philosophy
Share this thread:
drag
#19
May24-03, 04:41 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,341
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Point being (among other points) is that a philosopher is allowed to be an idiot.

An intelligent person and an idiot, both of whom use only the idea of philosophy, and no other of their knowledge, won't create any different assumptions.

Philosophy doesn't require knowledge, nor does it even use knowledge of it was even there.

It's just a "why, why, why"

You could ask why do anything. Why are black sheep blue? That's philosophy, and it defies all logic.

Science can't defy logic, because it's a daughter of logic.

Philosophy is then, even lower than a pseuo-science. It's like a pseudo-logic.

Yet even beyond that. It's non-existant in reality.
Can a building exist without the basis that connects it to the ground ? Can a cloud exist and have no bounderies ?
Can the likely basic assumptions infered from observation
and used by science lack any explanation themselves, thus
accepting their own inability of providing an explanation ?

Peace and long life.
drag
#20
May24-03, 04:46 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,341
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Right. Unlike science, philosophy is the only
field that strives to take nothing on faith.
Bravo !
LogicalAtheist
#21
May24-03, 06:01 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Right. Unlike science, philosophy is the only field that strives to take nothing on faith.

So, let's see. Not only do you claim that definition of an axiom in the oxford is completely wrong.

But you claim that philosophy won't accept something that isn't absolutely true, while mathematics accepts false claims?

Then surely you must be a mathametician, because you accept the false claim of an axiom!

Ya make no sense man. Philosophy is nothing other than an attempt to think, when one is just rearranging predjudices...
Iacchus32
#22
May24-03, 06:10 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Would the proper word you're looking for be "speculation?" Which, of course is just another word for the "thinking process."
Hurkyl
#23
May24-03, 06:46 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards!


Out of curiousity, are you objecting to "Philosophers strive to take nothing on faith" or are you objecting to "Scientists do not strive to take nothing on faith"?


So, let's see. Not only do you claim that definition of an axiom in the oxford is completely wrong.
(I assume you're referencing that other thread)

If you scrutinized your claim before you posted, you would have noticed that I was not objecting to the definition that an axiom is something assumed to be true; I was objecting to your assertion that an axiom is something that cannot be false.


But you claim that philosophy won't accept something that isn't absolutely true, while mathematics accepts false claims?
Eh? Where did I claim that?
Alexander
#24
May24-03, 07:05 PM
P: n/a
True - that a philosophy was a first primitive science, shortly after a speech developed to the point when the word "why" was introduced in it. As both experimental and theoretical (=mathematical) ways of answering were practically inexistent back then, the only way to answer why questions was to speculate. That is what a philoposphy was (and is) doing.

Since then many disciplines were born to more accurately answer numerous old and new "why" questions. Logic, math (=advanced logic), physics, astronomy, geology, biology, quantum mechanics, etc.

But a philosophy is still trying to answer questions using speculations only. Usually by generalising particular opinion to all universe ("all sheep are black") without bothering to find solid proof first (thus no waste baskets are needed in philosophy department).
LogicalAtheist
#25
May24-03, 07:31 PM
P: n/a
Philosophy (in it's old world term) developed alongside religion.

Philosophy asked the question why.

No one had the ability to answer, and the answer was incorporated with religious mythology.

People wrote mythological stories which happened to deal with many unanswered questions. Eventually people didn't get real answers and they assumed answers in fictional religious mythology texts were real.

Science has since made philosophy and religion useless.

Science not only creates a foundation through logic as to how to ask "why" but it creates a self-scrutinizing logical foundation (the scientific method) for answersing a "why", to the satisfaction that others can scrutinize.

Philosophy and Religion, when imposed onto others is called politics.

Thus because philosophy and religion are dead (meaning useless) politics is merely an attempt to over power others.

Science lives because it is the truth, no matter what the truth is.
Hurkyl
#26
May24-03, 09:24 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Science lives because it is the truth, no matter what the truth is.
What if the "truth" is "Science is not the truth"?


Ok, now back to seriousness.

From the context of a scientific approach to knowledge, the reason philosophy still exists is because it challenges premises. Premises should be challenged at every tier of knowledge. There is no reason to believe there is a magic cutoff below which the current state of knowledge should be taken as perfect, complete, and infallible, and only knowledge above the cutoff is subject to inquiry.

I can't speak for philosophy, but I know advances are still being made in the very low levels of mathematics, including mathematical logic.



Besides, upon what can you base your judgement that the very foundations of your beliefs are correct?
Alexander
#27
May24-03, 09:30 PM
P: n/a
It is not a philosophy which questions premises and conclusions, it is a science. Scientists are constantly testing Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Shroedinger, fundamental constants, fundamental symmetries, etc - in wider and wider areas and with finer and finer measurements.
LogicalAtheist
#28
May24-03, 09:33 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Hurkyl
What if the "truth" is "Science is not the truth"?


Ok, now back to seriousness.

From the context of a scientific approach to knowledge, the reason philosophy still exists is because it challenges premises. Premises should be challenged at every tier of knowledge. There is no reason to believe there is a magic cutoff below which the current state of knowledge should be taken as perfect, complete, and infallible, and only knowledge above the cutoff is subject to inquiry.

I can't speak for philosophy, but I know advances are still being made in the very low levels of mathematics, including mathematical logic.



Besides, upon what can you base your judgement that the very foundations of your beliefs are correct?

Logic is math. The entirity of logic and be expressed mathematically. Except when one is talking about the "logic" in a proposed claim etc...

Philosophy is NOT a tier of knowledge

Philosophy does NOT question premises.

Philosophy says "why", and then another "why".

Philosophy doesn't bother to think about it, or be logically.

Philosophy has nothing to do with logic, they're 100% different.

The only comparison of them can be done when logic in a language is concerned. This is not deductive logic.

Inductive logic isn't REAL (mathematical) logic.
Hurkyl
#29
May24-03, 10:04 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Ok, let me make my statement in a more direct fashion.

The very idea that we should use mathematical logic should be questioned right along with every other idea.
LogicalAtheist
#30
May24-03, 10:12 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Ok, let me make my statement in a more direct fashion.

The very idea that we should use mathematical logic should be questioned right along with every other idea.

Why? Why "should" it be questioned, and why "should" every other idea be questioned?

Explain why you believe (not think) that such things "should" be questioned?
Hurkyl
#31
May24-03, 11:14 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
You believe that faith is not acceptable justification for anything, do you not?

Then the logical conclusion is that you should not accept logic on faith, correct?

I hope that's enough hinting to show you where your burden of proof lies.
Iacchus32
#32
May24-03, 11:22 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophy doesn't bother to think about it, or be logically.

Philosophy has nothing to do with logic, they're 100% different.
And yet philosophy allows for the possibility of logic. And how you can you possibly define anything without the preponderance to question what it is in the first place?
LogicalAtheist
#33
May24-03, 11:28 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You believe that faith is not acceptable justification for anything, do you not?

Then the logical conclusion is that you should not accept logic on faith, correct?

I hope that's enough hinting to show you where your burden of proof lies.

Logic should be accepted on faith?

Logic should be accepted because it's logical.
wuliheron
#34
May25-03, 12:51 AM
P: 1,967
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Logic should be accepted on faith?

Logic should be accepted because it's logical.
And because it is meaningful.
Hurkyl
#35
May25-03, 01:21 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Logic should be accepted because it's logical.
And being logical is a reason to accept it because.....
LogicalAtheist
#36
May25-03, 02:19 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And being logical is a reason to accept it because.....

1. Because of its self-scrutinizing nature.

2. Because not only is it self-scrutinizing, but it's a universally acceptable form to communicate in. Thus a scrutinization can be translated so all can adjust.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Will nanotechnology replace modern Engineering disciplines? General Engineering 4
What is/is not science? Which science disciplines have testable theories? General Discussion 3
A philosophy about philosophy and happiness General Discussion 2
List of biology disciplines Biology 11
Shaolin Philosophy: A martial arts philosophy General Discussion 12