A place of philosophy among other disciplines.

  • Thread starter Alexander
  • Start date
  • #26
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,843
17
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?
 
  • #27
Alexander
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
LogicalAtheist
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.
 
  • #29
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,843
17
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.
 
  • #30
LogicalAtheist
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?
 
  • #31
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,843
17
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.
 
  • #32
2,224
0
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?
 
  • #33
LogicalAtheist
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.
 
  • #34
1,927
0
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Logic should be accepted on faith?

Logic should be accepted because it's logical.
And because it is meaningful.
 
  • #35
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,843
17
Logic should be accepted because it's logical.
And being logical is a reason to accept it because.....
 
  • #36
LogicalAtheist
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.
 
  • #37
1,927
0
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
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.
NO!!! I refuse to adjust!!! Life is more than just logic, or a great deal of strife would not exist. Without context, logic is meaningless.
 
  • #38
drag
Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by Hurkyl
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.
Very well put. But, to no awail apparently, just
like my numerous posts expressing the same ideas.
Originally posted by Alexander
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.
Sure they question them, using mostly the SAME tools...:wink:
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
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.
Please, fomalize and write down the rules
of this Universal logic. (So that I could study them
and see weather they match my Universal logic. :wink:)
Thanks.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #39
3,754
2
Hurkyl, I applaud you unceasingly, on making the point I would have made, but doing so in a superlative manner. Kudos.
 

Related Threads for: A place of philosophy among other disciplines.

Replies
1
Views
651
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
819
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
Top