Fight Semi-Scientists: Embrace Inexactness for Exact Thinking

[marlon]

Don't despair at your inability to read well and thoroughly. An introductory course in philosophy may be just what you need!

Cheers!

hahahahahaha, again nice one, this is really funny. Some words of advice to you, my dear friend.

explaining something difficult in a difficult way is easy...
explaining something difficult in an easy way is difficult...

Learn from this, man

marlon

 

[cogito]

Don't cheat man, you are making yourself look incredibely stupid now, sorry. Formal Logic belongs to the mathmaticians.

We know at best how theories work since we are the ones that make them. Stop being such a big baby about this. What philisopher created GTR or the Standar Model. Would you call the Friedman models to be mechanic? I think you need to brush up your physics courses.

And what is this stuff about "convincing the other readers...". Any real scientist will be able to see that YOU are the one with lack of REAL scientific knowledge. Don't bring in other people just because you ain't got nothing else to say. It makes you look quite "out of philosophical inspiration"

marlon

You're on crack. Formal Logic is taught by both philosophy and mathematics departments across the country (and in far more philosophy departments than mathematical departments in subjects like modal logic, and almost exclusively in philosophy departments in subjects like first-order predicate calculus). Frege was a philosopher, Russell was a philosopher, as were Carnap and Quine and Putnam. Seriously, you look like a chump when you make claims like this.

And, again, please learn to read closely. I didn't say that philosophers constructed current scientific theories, I claimed that philosophers of science and epistemologists understand better than you (and, in general, better than practicing scientists) how scientific theories are confirmed. I bet you don't know the first thing about inferences to best explanation, or the debates about the purported criteria for justified inferences to the best explanations (i.e., simiplicity, elegance, explanatory depth, predictions, fecundity, coherence with established theory, etc.). So, what do you know about the different models of scientific theory confirmation? What's the hypothetico-deductive model, and what its criticisms? What is the deductive-nomological account of scientific explanation? You don't know a damn thing about the normative dimension of scientific practice; about how it justifies belief, and how theories are themselves confirmed. This is why you are nothing more than a glorified mechanic. Perhaps you should spend a day researching what philosophers actually do, and what the areas of expertise are for philosophers of science, before you toss off your allegations concerning something of which you know not what.


Cheers!

 

[cogito]

Now what a clear anwser...distinct yet continuous...The examples you gave all refer to real medical and physical sciences. Where exactly does this philisophy-thing come into play. I still don't see the use of your "disipline"


Please, do try to be more clear in stead of replying with vague answers and then say that people did not get it. A course in exact science may be just what you need.


marlon

Do you not understand the terms 'distinct' and 'continuous'? Washington state is a distinct state from Oregon state, and yet they are continuous with one another in that they have a boundary where they intersect (in the Columbia river, as a matter of fact...). Similarly with the disciplines I mentioned above. Neurophysiology doesn't particularly focus on questions of intentionality or the qualitative character of experience or with the nature of cognitive architecture and mental representations (though defintely more on the latter two than the former). Philosophers of mind focus on these questions. If you want to check out the work of some top-notch philosopher's of mind, check out the online papers of Jerry Fodor, Ned Bloch, David Chalmers. That way, you will know a bit about the subject before you spout off, a priori, your nonsense.

Cheers!

 

[hypnagogue]

I appreciate that this is a contentious discussion, but that doesn't give license for personal jabs. Let's keep this on the level of an academic discussion without descending into a flame war.

 

[cogito]

hahahahahaha, again nice one, this is really funny. Some words of advice to you, my dear friend.

explaining something difficult in a difficult way is easy...
explaining something difficult in an easy way is difficult...

Learn from this, man

marlon

How would you know? When has anything been successfully explained to you?

 

[marlon]

And, again, please learn to read closely. I didn't say that philosophers constructed current scientific theories, I claimed that philosophers of science and epistemologists understand better than you (and, in general, better than practicing scientists) how scientific theories are confirmed. I bet you don't know the first thing about inferences to best explanation, or the debates about the purported criteria for justified inferences to the best explanations (i.e., simiplicity, elegance, explanatory depth, predictions, fecundity, coherence with established theory, etc.). So, what do you know about the different models of scientific theory confirmation? What's the hypothetico-deductive model, and what it's criticisms? What is the deductive-nomological account of scientific explanation? You don't know a damn thing about the normative dimension of scientific practice; about how it justifies belief, and how theories are themselves confirmed. This is why you are nothing more than a glorified mechanic.


Cheers!

Again a mathmatecian is far more apt in formal logic then any philisopher will ever be...regardless of whose names you recite...

Your theory on "theories" really makes me laugh my ass off. We construct the models and we understand them the best. I find it very self-centered to say that some philosopher understands the "mechanics" of theories better then the actual constructers of such theories. Again what you do is invent some field of knowledge and then say that you are the best in it. Sorry, this way of philisophical thinking will never be approved by any real scientific community what so ever, regardless of what you say. Do you know what dynamical mass generation is ? What is the Higgs-mechanism or what are the main differences between loop quantum gravity and string theory...stop making a fool out of yourself and name me some real things you are able to do with your field of amuzement, in stead of picking on the real knowledge that shapes our contemporary society.

Again i ask you : what is this weak argument of being mechanic, does this apply to all fysics? If it doesn't then stop using it, otherwise join the group of failed wannabe-scientist-peole... Start making some real usefull statements.


marlon
marlon

 

[marlon]

I appreciate that this is a contentious discussion, but that doesn't give license for personal jabs. Let's keep this on the level of an academic discussion without descending into a flame war.

Ok, no problem...if will be more aware of my choise of words in the process of bringing a lost colleague back to reality...oopppss there goes gravity...we only get one shot...

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

How would you know? When has anything been successfully explained to you?

Hey, do try to be more polite man...
In the long run, you will see that i am only helping you out here...

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

Do you not understand the terms 'distinct' and 'continuous'? Washington state is a distinct state from Oregon state, and yet they are continuous with one another in that they have a boundary where they intersect (in the Columbia river, as a matter of fact...). Similarly with the disciplines I mentioned above. Neurophysiology doesn't particularly focus on questions of intentionality or the qualitative character of experience or with the nature of cognitive architecture and mental representations (though defintely more on the latter two than the former). Philosophers of mind focus on these questions. If you want to check out the work of some top-notch philosopher's of mind, check out the online papers of Jerry Fodor, Ned Bloch, David Chalmers. That way, you will know a bit about the subject before you spout off, a priori, your nonsense.

Cheers!

This is exactly what i mean. It is easy to talk in vague terms and then say that someone knows nothing about it. This is just as easy as inventing a certain field of knowledge and then say you are a specialist. Where is your science advisor medal ?

marlon

 

[cogito]

Again a mathmatecian is far more apt in formal logic then any philisopher will ever be...regardless of whose names you recite...

Your theory on "theories" really makes me laugh my ass off. We construct the models and we understand them the best. I find it very self-centered to say that some philosopher understands the "mechanics" of theories better then the actual constructers of such theories. Again what you do is invent some field of knowledge and then say that you are the best in it. Sorry, this way of philisophical thinking will never be approved by any real scientific community what so ever, regardless of what you say. Do you know what dynamical mass generation is ? What is the Higgs-mechanism or what are the main differences between loop quantum gravity and string theory...stop making a fool out of yourself and name me some real things you are able to do with your field of amuzement, in stead of picking on the real knowledge that shapes our contemporary society.

Again i ask you : what is this weak argument of being mechanic, does this apply to all fysics? If it doesn't then stop using it, otherwise join the group of failed wannabe-scientist-peole... Start making some real usefull statements.


marlon
marlon

I asked you some questions above about the scientific theories. Are you going to answer them? What do you know about the way scientific theories are justified. Why do they give us reasons for belief. Given that almost all scientific theories have been shown to contain false statements, why should be have any confindence in the current set of scientific theories? Of course, the response will involve reference to abduction, or inference to the best explanation. But how is that supposed to work? What are the criteria for such an inference? Come on now, if you're so intimately familiar with scientific theories, you should be able to answer this simple question, shouldn't you?

Further, do you even know who Frege is? Or Russell, or Quine, or Benson Mates, for that matter? These are philosophers and top-notch logicians. Logic was not only invented (or discovered, depending on how you feel about that topic) by philosophers, it was formalized by philosophers. The major advances have, by and large, come from philosophers. It is currently taught widely (and, for some forms of logic, universally) by philosophers. Yet you claim it falls under the category 'mathematics', as though every deductive discipline is mathematics. Guess what? You don't know what you're talking about.

When I call you a mechanic, I mean that you are a technician. You don't understand the normative dimension of your own field of study. You don't understand what it takes to confirm a scientific theory, nor do you know what explanation consists in, nor how such an explanation could justify belief. You are completely divorced from the relationship science has with rationality and belief. I'm sure you are able to regurgitate that which you've been spoon fed by your professors. Perhaps you can take measurements. Maybe you understand enough to set up your own experiments. You are technically proficient, though ignorant of the epistemology that undergirds your discipline.

Cheers!

 

[cogito]

This is exactly what i mean. It is easy to talk in vague terms and then say that someone knows nothing about it. This is just as easy as inventing a certain field of knowledge and then say you are a specialist. Where is your science advisor medal ?

marlon

The terms will seem vague to anybody that doesn't know what mean. The term 'abduction' for instance, refers to a type of inference. If you think the term is vague, then you are unfamiliar with the type of inference to which it refers. If you would like the term to be less vague (that is, if you would like to be less ignorant about philosophy); if you are interested in knowing what philosophy is about, you should try reading some philosophy, or taking a class on the subject. As to your medal, congratulations! You are a science advisor on the internet!

 

[marlon]

I asked you some questions above about the scientific theories. Are you going to answer them? What do you know about the way scientific theories are justified. Why do they give us reasons for belief. Given that almost all scientific theories have been shown to contain false statements, why should be have any confindence in the current set of scientific theories? Of course, the response will involve reference to abduction, or inference to the best explanation. But how is that supposed to work? What are the criteria for such an inference? Come on now, if you're so intimately familiar with scientific theories, you should be able to answer this simple question, shouldn't you?

Further, do you even know who Frege is? Or Russell, or Quine, or Benson Mates, for that matter? These are philosophers and top-notch logicians. Logic was not only invented (or discovered, depending on how you feel about that topic) by philosophers, it was formalized by philosophers. The major advances have, by and large, come from philosophers. It is currently taught widely be philosophers. Yet you claim it falls under the category 'mathematics', as though every deductive discipline is mathematics. Guess what? You don't know what you're talking about.

When I call you a mechanic, I mean that you are a technician. You don't understand the normative dimension of your own field of study. You don't understand what it takes to confirm a scientific theory, nor do you know what explanation consists in, nor how such an explanation could justify belief. You are completely divorced from the relationship science has with rationality and belief. I'm sure you are able to regurgitate that which you've been spoon fed by your professors. Perhaps you can take measurements. Maybe you understand enough to set up your own experiments. You are technically proficient, though ignorant of the epistemology that undergirds your discipline.

Cheers!

Pfff, this is getting a bit boring...
Let me give you this example : The Standard Model does the best job up till now when it comes to explaining the behaviour of all elementary particles and the fundamental interactions, except gravity which is described by General Relativity. The accuracy of QED is this good that if you were to measure the distance between your head and the moon, you would not be able to tell whether you measured from the top of your head or the bottom...

The way exact science works is NO science on itself, hence philisophy is useless in that respect. I am sure i stated this before, but obviously you have a problem with memorizing previously said information. I can see now, why you ain't no real scientist since you do NOT appear to have the brains for it...don't worry, this is not an insult, just don't try to invent your own science as some form of personal confort...

When experimental data are available, we try to set up some modell that describes these data. I mean, we try to find laws with which we are able to reproduce these data in different conditions, ofcourse everytime backed up with the experimental evidence. Ofcourse models are never totally right. That is why we work with regimes in physiscs. Newtonian mechanics does a great job in explaining friction, gravity on this planet, motion of cars and falling objects. When the scale of distance is very small, things are wrong. That is where Quantumechanics come into play... If we enlarge things like speed, Special and General relativity comes in...We know exactly when we need to apply these models.

When a certain model does not predict the right data. I mean, when experiments give other data then theoretical models we can do two things : we can change the model and adapt it to match the data or we can write an entire new theory. The laws of conservation where not given up in the advent of QFT. What we did is postulate the existence of new particles and wrote models for them, like the standard model. This is how new concepts are created.

Did you see me making any use what so ever of your philisophy-stuff. Indeed no. Keep in mind that physics describes nature : it does not tell how nature works the way she works. We describe gravity, yet we do not explain why it is there...we create usefull things for mankind and that is why we are the most usefull...

And no, formal logic is a disipline of mathematics since this way if thinking is inherent to math and not to what you call philosophy. Can't you see you are redundant ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

As to your medal, congratulations! You are a science advisor on the internet!

and you are NOT

marlon

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is exactly what i mean. It is easy to talk in vague terms and then say that someone knows nothing about it. This is just as easy as inventing a certain field of knowledge and then say you are a specialist. Where is your science advisor medal.

That's what I suspect your problem is, you think that medal has made you a genius about everything. Our illustrious mentor ( no sarcasm intended) has asked for civility. But what about the expectation that someone trusted with Advisor status will debate with facts, will honestly respond to challenges, and will be respectful of others' expertise?

My opening comment of this thread "let's get it on," was not an invitation to an ad hominem melee. I assumed you knew I meant a debate of the sort that characterizes intelligent, respectful, educated people. But you have debated like a thug rather than a gentleman and scholar, which is very difficult to tolerate by anyone who's put conscientious effort into mastering some specialty.

Maybe the philosophy area and the science area needs to come to some sort of understanding that's long overdue, I don't know. But that doesn't excuse you from making your case with facts and logic, and it doesn't justify your shallow and mocking retorts.

 

[marlon]

That's what I suspect your problem is, you think that medal has made you a genius about everything. Our illustrious mentor ( no sarcasm intended) has asked for civility. But what about the expectation that someone trusted with Advisor status will debate with facts, will honestly respond to challenges, and will be respectful of others' expertise?

My opening comment of this thread "let's get it on," was not an invitation to an ad hominem melee. I assumed you knew I meant a debate of the sort that characterizes intelligent, respectful, educated people. But you have debated like a thug rather than a gentleman and scholar, which is very difficult to tolerate by anyone who's put conscientious effort into mastering some specialty.

Maybe the philosophy area and the science area needs to come to some sort of understanding that's long overdue, I don't know. But that doesn't excuse you from making your case with facts and logic, and it doesn't justify your shallow and mocking retorts.

Excuse me dear sir, but your colleague was not exactly as polite as needed to be. Besides i never heard no real argument from him and he never answered my questions.

In the end, i have a problem with people that stand by the side and hop in from time to time to say that we are not discussing in "the right way".

With all due respect, who are you to say all this? Please, only post when you have something usefull to say. Apparently this is a common property of all you philisophers. Just read my previous posts and look at how a talk about things in other boards, then judge me.

About the medal, that was meant to be a joke...seems to me someone is a bit unhappy whith the fact he has none. Do you recall how this thread was started or do i need to refresh your memory? Why o why do all philosophers have such a bad memory? Is it to forget rapidly what nonsense you guys produce on a day ?

marlon

 

[Les Sleeth]

Excuse me dear sir, but your colleague was not exactly as polite as needed to be. Besides i never heard no real argument from him and he never answered my questions.

His ire is at your arrogance and rudeness. You started it, not him. He's given you arguments so "real" that any intelligent person would be apologizing for exhibiting the kind of disrespect you've shown. The problem is, you really don't know what you are talking about, yet you are acting like you do.

With all due respect, who are you to say all this? Please, only post when you have something usefull to say.

This was designated MY thread. Do you know the meaning of arrogance? It is derived from the word "arrogate," which essentially means to assume control or power over a situation one is not entitled to or qualified for.

Apparently this is a common property of all you philisophers.

More sarcastic crap. Talk logic, state facts, make your case.

Just read my previous posts and look at how a talk about things in other boards, then judge me.

This ain't about other boards. No one is challenging your science competence, it is your depth and breath of education, along with your respect for other perspectives that's in question.

About the medal, that was meant to be a joke...seems to me someone is a bit unhappy whith the fact he has none. Do you recall how this thread was started or do i need to refresh your memory?

Only an unaccomplished 24 year old would think something like that. Live awhile and come back to tell me all the successes you've had. If I have any concern about that medal, it has to do with hoping the potential of philosophy will be recognized here for helping orient philosophically-minded people toward empirical thinking. In a way I do hope to have more power to guide PF's philosophy in that direction, and away from the sort crazy stuff that scares Zapper and others.

 

[marlon]

In my opinion, no one of the two of you answered my questions. Instead you repley with insults...especially you Lee...

Don't mix competence with arrogance and incompetence with philosophical knowledge...


regards
marlon

 

[hypnagogue]

In case anyone missed the message, ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. I've said this twice already in this thread, and I meant it. If you cannot show some level of respect for your fellow PF members, don't bother posting.

 

[RetiredMD]

In case anyone missed the message, ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. I've said this twice already in this thread, and I meant it. If you cannot show some level of respect for your fellow PF members, don't bother posting.

A stroke prevents me from using a keyboard comfortably and has kept me a lurker at Physics Forums for something like two years. I made the exertion to join today because there is something I want to say.

I don’t understand why mentors didn’t warn Marlon for writing false information, and for the discourteous deportment he assumed early on in the debate. In other areas of Physics Forums mentors are quick to correct or even censure such blatant disregard of facts and impolite pomposity. Yet when Marlon openly misrepresented philosophy, and made it clear he didn’t respect Les and Cogito enough to even manage sincerity, the silence was deafening from Physics Forums supervisors. Moreover, when comments turned angry you treated both Les and Marlon the same, when in reality Marlon was far more responsible.

In my opinion you left Les hanging out to dry. I’ve read LWSleeth’s thoughts from the days of your previous format. I believe he is the best natural philosopher there and courageous too. He is consistently real, not just a book philosopher like so many are. Without him Physics Forums would not be as interesting.

 

[Fliption]

Yet when Marlon openly misrepresented philosophy, and made it clear he didn’t respect Les and Cogito enough to even manage sincerity, the silence was deafening from Physics Forums supervisors. Moreover, when comments turned angry you treated both Les and Marlon the same, when in reality Marlon was far more responsible.

In my opinion you left Les hanging out to dry. I’ve read LWSleeth’s thoughts from the days of your previous format. I believe he is the best natural philosopher there and courageous too. He is consistently real, not just a book philosopher like so many are. Without him Physics Forums would not be as interesting.

Amen to that.

 

[hypnagogue]

RetiredMD, thanks for your concern. You may be right that more immediate moderator action was warranted here. If anything, I felt that letting the conversation take its course was productive.

The kind of anti-philosophy sentiment expressed in this thread seems to be somewhat common attitude among 'hard-nosed' scientist types, and as this is first and foremost a science site, I imagine there are a number of such people here. So perhaps it is of more value to let them air out their views against philosophy and then make the case for philosophy, or even in some instances point out where their conceptions are outright false, than to squash the argument before it begins. I readily acknowledge that some of marlon's ideas about philosophy are not just disparaging but outright false. However, I think that they may be common misconceptions about philosophy, especially at a site such as this. If that is the case, then Les and cogito have done a great service to battle against such ignorance of the discipline, a service which could not have been fully realized had the conversation been immediately halted. That said, I fully recognize your concerns here and fully accept the brunt of any criticisms you might have.

I apologize if it appears as if I've left Les or anyone else out to dry. I agree with you that Les is a valuable member of PF, and that our community is better off for having him. While none of the recent posters in this thread are entirely without fault in terms of how they have conducted themselves, I don't mean to give the impression that they are all equally to blame either (although I can see how it might appear that way). Les's last post in this thread has been deleted in an effort to remove any trace of marlon's unacceptable ad hominem attack more than anything else. Suffice it to say that appropriate action has been taken behind the scenes.

 

[marlon]

Les's last post in this thread has been deleted in an effort to remove any trace of marlon's unacceptable ad hominem attack more than anything else. Suffice it to say that appropriate action has been taken behind the scenes.

mmmm

Suffice it to say that this is a very philosophical statement...

marlon

 

[Les Sleeth]

I believe he is the best natural philosopher there . . . .

Thank you for your kind and supportive words, I'll try to get back to my old self! At first I thought when you described me as a "natural philosopoher" that those familar with naturalism might not agree. But after thinking about it I realized that I really do believe everything has come about throught natural principles, and that would include a creator if there is one. I think where I'd vary from most naturalists is that I don't believe all natural principles that exist are necessarily embodied in physics. Hey you might have given me an idea for a new thread, so thanks for that too!

 

[Les Sleeth]

While none of the recent posters in this thread are entirely without fault in terms of how they have conducted themselves, I don't mean to give the impression that they are all equally to blame either (although I can see how it might appear that way). Les's last post in this thread has been deleted . . .

I do regret my over the top and inappropriate anger at Zapper, and that I prepared that last bit of dripping sarcasm for Marlon you deleted. Now everyone knows I sometimes do take things personally, which is a trait I have been trying to eliminate from my psychology. As RetiredMD hinted, I did feel like I was under personal attack, but I should have handled it better. Now I wish I'd had only been mildly sarcastic (at most! ).

 

[quantumdude]

Why philosophy?

While philosophical views and methods may vary widely, most of what is regarded as professional or academic philosophy makes careful, rigorous use of logic, and this is where its credibility comes from, at least to me. The "exactness" of philosophy resides in the standards imposed by logic.

Humans have a desire to pose questions whose answers are not accessible to scientific inquiry. This will always be the case, and pretending that the questions do not exist is not a realistic option. Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly. Those people who have dedicated themselves to addressing such questions well are philosophers.

Just take a look at a few articles which come from reputable sources in philosophy. Note the insistence on valid logic in each case.

Actualism
Category Theory
Bayesian Epistemology
Logic and Ontology

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Humans have a desire to pose questions whose answers are not accessible to scientific inquiry.

Check.

This will always be the case, and pretending that the questions do not exist is not a realistic option.

Check.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly.

How?

(snip)

Just take a look at a few articles which come from reputable sources in philosophy. Note the insistence on valid logic in each case.

Actualism

" -- everything that can be said to exist in any sense -- is actual. Put another way, actualism denies that there is any kind of being beyond actuality; to be is to be actual. Actualism therefore stands in stark contrast to possibilism, which, as we've seen, takes the things there are to include possible but non-actual objects. " :zzz: Uhh --- not "check."

Category Theory

Check.
Bayesian Epistemology

Check.
Logic and Ontology

Check.

Physics: the standards of "quality" are consistency with conservation principles, GR to Newtonian mechanics, thermo, QM. Philosophy: the standards of quality are consistency with principles of logic, and what else? Seriously, how much effort is the clarification of "actualism" vs. "possibilism" worth?

 

[quantumdude]

Tom: Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly.

Bystander: How?

By insisting on well-defined terms, valid logic where applicable, and experiential confirmation where applicable.

" -- everything that can be said to exist in any sense -- is actual. Put another way, actualism denies that there is any kind of being beyond actuality; to be is to be actual. Actualism therefore stands in stark contrast to possibilism, which, as we've seen, takes the things there are to include possible but non-actual objects. " :zzz: Uhh --- not "check."

My post asked the reader to note the insistence on good logic, and to accept that good logic is a measure of the "exactness" of philosophy.

Determining whether the subject matter is deemed important or interesting is outside the scope of what I asked.

Philosophy: the standards of quality are consistency with principles of logic, and what else?

Philosophy is not pure logic of course. All philosophical schools of thought actually take a position on certain matters, which means that premises have to be explicitly given. These premises are evaluated according to how well-defined their logical and non-logical vocabularies are, and whether they are consistent with what we observe. The proceeding inferences are evaluated according to the rules of logic.

Seriously, how much effort is the clarification of "actualism" vs. "possibilism" worth?

It's worth however much effort you are willing to spend on it. As for me, it's not of much interest. I selected the article because it makes explicit use of symbolic modal logic.

Incidentally, my favorite topics in philosophy are formal logic and the metaphysics of space and time, so I concentrate on those.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Incidentally, my favorite topics in philosophy are formal logic and the metaphysics of space and time, so I concentrate on those.

It would be interesting to hear some of your thoughts on the metaphysics of space and time. They are also very interesting to me. Any chance of you starting a thread to explore that?

 

[Moonbear]

I've only skimmed much of this thread, but I get the impression that many here don't appreciate why philosophy is included as a part of a science forum site. As Les has been pointing out, logical argument is one of the hallmarks of philosophy. Although there are a lot of nuts attracted to philosophy, just as there are nuts attracted to science, they are not representative of the field of study. Indeed, all fields of science are branches of philosophy, and the origin of scientific method can be credited to philosophy. The highest degree offered for a scientist is the Ph.D., or Doctor of Philosophy.

When there are facts available for an argument, they must be used, and philosophers are aware of this. However, as much of those fields of philosophy have branched off into the other sciences, philosophers continue to seek explanations for those things that do not come with easy to observe, factual data. Their theories then can either be studied in more detail, as tools become available, by one of the existing sciences, or perhaps will form the basis of a new field of scientific inquiry. There's no way to predict this.

If you read the works of real philosophers, the rigor for logical arguments is even stronger than in some of the other sciences; they leave no room for skipping a step or making an assumption without explicitely stating it as an assumption.

While I know philosophy professors who truly hate teaching the course, because they think it's boring, I loved my course in formal logic. It was quite an eye-opener and while it was a bit bizarre to learn the symbols, it has turned out quite useful to hone my writing skills and improve my ability to present a convincing argument to other scientists, as well as to present an easily understood explanation of topics to my students.

 

[Nereid]

I've not had the time to read all this lately, but just to add a small comment to Moonbear's excellent post: just as in science, so too in philosophy there are terms which have narrow and precise meanings (well known to those active in the field). Sometimes, too, some terms look like ordinary (English) words, just as in physics or other sciences (think of 'work', or 'energy'). This can lead the unwary reader to read a solid piece of good philosophy and conclude that it's just waffle (OK, some bits of philosophy come across as waffle even after you understand the terms!); but that's the case in some areas of science too, esp where the mathematical (model) bases haven't yet been well established (fewer good examples today than, say, 50 years ago).

 

[metacristi]

I myself feel sometimes (much more stronger feeling in the past) that philosophers just waste our time in their quest to find justification for virtually everything.Something which,of course,scientists never do since we observe that we can proceed from a certain point on with some axioms,empirical observations and a methodology (having both logical and empirical aspects;settling also the situation of unobservables in science) from which to build a harmonious,internally coherent and simple,system providing us the so called 'objective' knowledge.

To use one of Popper's examples,when trying to determine the speed of a sand dune a scientist will never waste time by trying to answer questions like 'how many grains of sand are there?' or 'what really is a grain of sand?' how philosophers tend to do.Science does not need to answer all questions in order to deal with observable effects,to find conjectures 'working' for all our practical purposes at a certain moment at least.More or less pure pragmatism,in other words.But this in no way amount to say that they (philosophers) are wrong.I thought myself after graduating from university,deh 'scientistic' indoctrination is a reality,that we have reasons beyond all reasonable doubt to grant to science an absolute (forever) epistemological privilege.But after reading some philosophy (only after a graduation unfortunately,no link to Internet during my universitary years) I realized that my belief is unjustified.

Now I really wonder why have I considered once,not so many years ago by the way,philosophy as being without any value...Still this does not mean that pure relativsm or feyerabendism (with the claim that science has no epistemological privilege) are the only rational paths remaining.For we still have more logical reasons,nonwithstanding that empiricism alone might not be enough,to grant an epistemological privilege,openly accepted as fallible however,at least to a minimal scientific method.

Thus the real problem I see is not that science has its roots in philosophy,it's clear that those who think that science is a sort of enclave and lead us always to the 'right way' are wrong.The problem is not even that philosophical ideas could not be of help for science itself,for example I do not think that a certain variant of dualism is impossible to become the first choice programm,it's still perfectly possible that sometime it will have epistemological privilege.

The problem is that some philosophers (philosophy of mind is a very good example) think that they have solved some 'puzzles',problems (of mind for example) once and forever NOW,already claiming epistemological privilege if no certitudes,for their view.Or this is inacceptable,their theoretical arguments are,still,not sound.Finally,as I've already argued in this thread,it is unrealistic to downgrade science at the level of an elaborated mith,as so many like to believe.Science has,still,epistemological privilege,nonwithstanding that only a fallible one,the necessity to reman,basically,open to all possibilities in no way subminate this,we merely have more 'pro' reasons (purely logical ones included).

As of now at least science and a (minimal) minimal scientific method is our best 'tool' to make sense of the observed facts.Sure not even the scientific method is 'set in stone',it should be able to 'evolve',the problem is that for a change to take place we need very,very,good reasons.Not the case now,this is why I think the approach of some in the philosophy of mind for example is wrong (though maybe in absolute they are right).The reality is that the actual emergentist conjecture of mind is still theoretically and empirically evolving and basically there is no good reason to change the method now (this in no way amounts to a claim that this will be forever the case as,unfortunately,enough many hardcore supporters of scientism like to believe).

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

I don't know why do people like certainty so much? Can we even accept for once that the thing facilitating discourse is uncertainty, and that uncertainty is a fact not only in science, but in life.

Why should philosophy arrive at definite answers to things? to me, philosophy is nothing more than a religion, I give you what a palette of theories, you go believe what you want, and argue on th validity of each. To me, saying that philosophy is inherently uncertain and thus it is a "sub" science, is like saying that just because sushi is raw, it is only fit for consumption by dogs.

Ongoing discourse is necessary so as to provide interpretations to new changes resulting from the evolution in both culture, society and even the physical sciences. Thus, you cannot expect philosophy to close its books,say ok, that's done, we have arrived at something definite, discussion's over.

I like to see philosophy as a more logical counterpart of religion. And perhaps to a theist, you would be able to understand if I related philosphy to religion.