Curious, Why No Philosophy Chat Allowed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyphysics
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
13 replies · 2K views
kyphysics
Messages
687
Reaction score
446
Maybe I'm biased, as it was one of my undergrad fields of study, but what's the reason PF doesn't allow talk of philosophy - even in General Discussion/non-science sections?

Seems like all sorts of fields of study are allowed, from economics to art history, in the non-science-y areas.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We’ve never found a way to effectively moderate these discussions. They tend to end up in the Internet equivalent of Gresham’s Law, with uninformed and argumentative posters overwhelming the thoughtful and knowledgeable.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc, Evo, symbolipoint and 5 others
Nugatory said:
We’ve never found a way to effectively moderate these discussions. They tend to end up in the Internet equivalent of Gresham’s Law, with uninformed and argumentative posters overwhelming the thoughtful and knowledgeable.
what he said (very small).jpg
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo and symbolipoint
kyphysics said:
Maybe I'm biased, as it was one of my undergrad fields of study, but what's the reason PF doesn't allow talk of philosophy - even in General Discussion/non-science sections?

Seems like all sorts of fields of study are allowed, from economics to art history, in the non-science-y areas.
Some good logic threads, Cantor, Russel and more recently hangman’s paradox.
Probably the closest I have seen pf threads touch on it.
Also interpretation of quantum mechanics has philosophical aspects.For me, Philosophy is best discussed when you are not actually discussing philosophy but that’s me.
Bohr and Einstein Solvay is probably the best example.Also I would search for “ontology” I think by Demystifier on pf.
I was very interested in that as I had looked it up and was never really clear whether I understood it or not.
Having read the pf thread I am now certain I do not understand it.
 
I like to compare this with a discussion about credit cards. Everyone has them and with their experiences comes an opinion. So any discussion will attract a lot of people, even more opinions, and hundreds of posts. However, honestly, how many among those participants do you think will actually know anything about the many mechanisms between the various companies behind the system. I don't mean what is written on Wikipedia, I mean actual protocols, queries, payments, and their protocols, legal requirements for participation, liability, security layers, etc.

The same is true for philosophy. Any philosophical debate will turn into an embarrasement for real philosophy. E.g., Sir Popper wrote a book about science and logic. This would be a perfect subject to discuss on PF. Should we create a poll to figure out a) who knows the existence of the book b) owns one c) has read it d) followed the discussion between Popper and Einstein about it e) none of the above?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, Evo, Drakkith and 2 others
Well, I think the real worth of any philosophy would not be about any book, but about actually using it. Kind of like the homework part of the forum.
But while homeworks has exact solutions, this part still requires the attention of Mentors.
Applied philosophy does not always has exact solutions and there are no Mentors for it.
No wonder this troublesome combination got squished.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, dlgoff, Nugatory and 1 other person
phinds said:
Why is the word exact in this sentence?
It might not be the word that I would have chosen, but the meaning is clear enough I think.
 
Nugatory said:
It might not be the word that I would have chosen, but the meaning is clear enough I think.
I said that sarcastically. I KNOW what he meant, I just don't agree.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
phinds said:
Why is the word exact in this sentence?
Because with philosophy even an existing but fuzzy solution may lead to trouble depending on the level of pickiness involved.
2+2 being as exact as it can requires quite an effort to turn into a debate.
 
Rive said:
Because with philosophy even an existing but fuzzy solution may lead to trouble depending on the level of pickiness involved.
2+2 being as exact as it can requires quite an effort to turn into a debate.
You're missing my point entirely. I think there are philosophical questions that don't have ANY solution so the word should just be LEFT OUT of the sentence, not replaced. Or perhaps I should say, there are questions that have multiple, contradictory solutions, which in a practical sense means they have no solution.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and Evo
Rive said:
Well, I think the real worth of any philosophy would not be about any book, but about actually using it.
That doesn't work here either! How often have we discussed reality, measurability, or probability? Nobody ever mentioned Wittgenstein. Instead, we circled in endless posts about the meaning of words.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
Well, before this becomes another endless thread about why we don't allow philosophy, thread closed. Thanks to all who replied.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G, Wrichik Basu, Astronuc and 7 others