What Philosophy IS and What it IS NOT

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Alexander
That is exactly what a philosophy is about - set
of BELIEFS.

Science does not use beliefs. It operates with
facts and logic instead.

Indeed, that is the case. The problem
arizes when you attempt to view science
as a whole and apply the same reasoning
to it that you use "within" it.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Indeed, that is the case. The problem
arizes when you attempt to view science
as a whole and apply the same reasoning
to it that you use "within" it.

You mean "facts and logic" method? OK.

Facts: science works (and, say, religion, or Santaclausism does not).

Logic: use science.

 

[Hurkyl]

Science does not use beliefs. It operates with
facts and logic instead.

That is half correct.

It operates with logic and things it calls facts, but one still has to believe that logic and the system of labelling statements as facts are the "right" way to do things.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
You must have just skimmed my post. Belief doesn't necessarily have anything to do with faith. Belief in science is a belief. All it means to believe is to hold something to be true. When this is based on facts and logic or not is irrelevant to the definition of belief. Science uses lots of beliefs, such as the belief that we can learn about our surroundings using experiements.

The word "belief" has two quite different meanings:

1)faith without proof. This is what science does NOT use.
2)opinion. Science uses opinions on the following basis. If certain opinion has NOT been substantiated by anything yet - then it is called a hypothesis. If the opinion has been substantiated by logic (math) then it is called a theory. If the opinion has been substantiated by math and observations - then it is called proven theory.

There is interesting distinction about meaning of a word "theory" in US and in elsewhere outside US. In US a hypothesis is often called a theory, but elswere else - only proven by logic/math hypothesis (and often only after proven by observation) is upgraded into a "theory" rank.

 

[BoulderHead]

I might add that we need to look to philosophy to see the origins of logic. As far as I'm aware, logic is still a branch of philosophy.

So, could it be that a bunch of stupid @$$ philosophers kept tossing around 'opinions' until something useful came out??

 

[Alexander]

Does philosophy still use logic today?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Alexander
Does philosophy still use logic today?

Yes, it is concerned with the second of two ways an argument can fail. That is; do the premises fail to establish the conclusion.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Alexander
You mean "facts and logic" method? OK.

Is the use of logic, logical ?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Alexander

There is interesting distinction about meaning of a word "theory" in US and in elsewhere outside US. In US a hypothesis is often called a theory, but elswere else - only proven by logic/math hypothesis (and often only after proven by observation) is upgraded into a "theory" rank.

That is irrelevant to the discussion. (Anyway, I think that the distinction should be made between scientific groups and unscientific groups, not the USA and elsewhere).
-----------------------
I do not think that those links posted by BoulderHead adequately reflect Philosophy of Science. Do a web search, or, better yet, contact a university.
-----------------------

Also, some people may call themselves philosophers and be mostly illogical. That does not represent what philosophy is. No person's set of beliefs or arguments represent what philosophy is. No person's method of gaining knowledge represents what philosophy is.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
I agree with Mentat. And so does anyone else that has been properly educated on the matter. Natural sciences are a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy was at first a "pure" science (in the time of Plato), and not based on scientific observation.
Science was born out of philosophy. Since then science went it's own way. Dialectical materialism is an attempt to reunite philosophy with science.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Natural Sciences aren't branch of philosophy. That's simply not true!

Philosophy is just a little concept.

Science came when humans were able to answer questions they asked. Philosophy served the purpose of pondering unintelligently the "why" before we could answer.

Now science took the "why" and made it part of the essence of science; the scientific method.

Even the section pf philosophy which is called LOGIC barely exists. Most of logic is expressed in pure math, and other parts are merely a guideline to writing papers that are "logical".

Philosophy is 100% dead. It's serves no purpose anylonger now that math and science have done it's job so much better than philosophy ever could.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Natural Sciences aren't branch of philosophy. That's simply not true!

The natural sciences are based on a set of principles which are their “philosophy.” However, you are right to say the application of natural sciences is not philosophy (unless one were using the results to support some philosophical stance).

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophy is just a little concept.

Now there is an informed statement if I ever heard one. Better do your homework boy.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Science came when humans were able to answer questions they asked. Philosophy served the purpose of pondering unintelligently the "why" before we could answer.

So you are saying all that Socrates, Leibnitz, Descartes, and the like ever did was ponder unintelligently? Einstein wrote some philosophy, was that unintelligent pondering?

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Even the section pf philosophy which is called LOGIC barely exists. Most of logic is expressed in pure math, and other parts are merely a guideline to writing papers that are "logical".

Do you know how easy it is to prove the absurdity of your statement? Go to Google, type in “study of logic,” or some similar search terms, and see what you get on the dozens of pages it gives you. Besides the fact that logic is taught at every major university in the world, you will also notice its specific application to music, archeology, computer science, and every other area of thought and investigation people take seriously.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Now science took the "why" and made it part of the essence of science; the scientific method.

You are at a science site, have you noticed? Why preach to the converted? Most of us here love science. You are acting like you are the only one who knows anything about or appreciates science, what’s up with that? Scientists and science lovers are allowed to have interest in philosophy, or anything else they choose, without having to endure boorish lectures from someone doesn’t even know what he is taking about.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophy is 100% dead. It's serves no purpose any longer now that math and science have done it's job so much better than philosophy ever could.

If philosophy is dead, then why is it the most robust area at PF, and PF is a science site? Again, why don’t you do a Google search using the word philosophy and see what you get. I have the latest edition of the “Writer’s Market,” and guess how many publishers are still looking for philosophical manuscripts. Publishers need to make money, and they don’t make money if what they publish what doesn’t sell.

It may be true that the area of classical philosophy using only a priori reasoning is dead, but plenty of people are still asking “why,” and searching for answers. When is the last time math or science told us anything about ethics? Science is helping us understand the physical word, which a good thing, but for a great many of us that isn’t enough.

See, you have a problem, and that is you think whatever you believe, or what you think is important, is or should be true for everyone. This is an example of the subjective fallacy you criticize, and yet you are the biggest offender of it I have ever seen! Like when earlier you said, “I have never but extremely rarely (and incorrectly) heard of your definition. . . . Again, I've never heard anyone with scientific (or otherwise) credibility use your definition.” So, because you, the ultimate expert in philosophy, haven’t heard of it means it isn’t so, right?

The truth is, you don’t know much about philosophy, or religion, other than you don’t like it. You speak as though you are an expert, yet half the stuff you say isn’t even true. It seems the only reason you post here is to act superior, which is why, speaking only for myself (obviously), I wish you’d take it somewhere else.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Dude, if philosophy is dead, then you must have no point to what you post, no method of organizing them, and no method of making a point. Because a person has a philosophy to posting, unless he or she just doesn't give it much thought and posts whatever comes to mind. A person has a philosophy to writing.

BTW, "philosophy" doesn't mean trying to assign a purpose to life or anything like that. The practice of philosophy is basically trying to find truth through reasoning (correct reasoning or incorrect reasoning). You can't get any more specific about what one tries to get from philosophy without getting into subcategories.

Examples of philosophy:
-Trying to understand Newton's first law.
-Wondering about the meaning of life
-Deciding if vengeance makes sense
-Deciding that science yields better results than religion
-Wondering why god did this or that (which, of course, assumes that god exists)

And I could go on and on. The point is that a wide variety of thoughts and pursuits fall under the category of "philosophy", and condemning philosophy is self-defeating because believing that philosophy sux is a philosophy, which I, as well as others, have pointed out in several threads.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Dan - you're making reference to the wrong definition of philosophy.

You can say someone has a "philosophy" to doing anything. That's all fine with me as that's just another twisted definition of philosophy, and an application of it into everything.

I'm talking about a different definition as seen above.

Sleeth - I suspect you are speaking to me, but you're on block, maybe I didn't tell you but I won't see your messages...sorry.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, there is no point to debating, but we can't even agree on what philosophy is. Some philosophy is all the stupid thinking, and some say otherwise.

 

[quantumdude]

I thought the issue of "what philosophy is" was pretty straightforward. Why all this back-and-forthing?

Go to any website devoted to philosophy, and you will see that it is typically taken to be the following:

1. Logic
2. Epistemology
3. Metaphysics
4. Ethics
5. Aesthetics

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Tom - and I suppose asking the pope what catholicism is is a good idea?

Those tied up into mythology aren't the best judges of it!

The problem with philosophy occurs between what philosophy WAS and what is IS NOW.

Let's see of this clears it up:

1. The listing tom gave is definitely considered to be widely accepted.

2. But none of those things exist in reality, except Logic.

3. Logic of reality is completely captured by mathematics. Thus logic is purposely because math is more powerful and more universal, being not in a language at all

4. Philosophy originally asked why before it could answer it. Since science (the scientific method) not only asks why (and with standards of why) but it also makes a logical empirical and mathetmatical (if possible) attempt to answer it.

5. Thus we see like logic and math, science is much more powerful and encompasses the "why" of philosophy

6. Because of this, those areas of philosophy have been overrun. Just like string theory is going to overrun a lot of QM and GR because we've found a more POWERFULL system.

7. Thus, we have seen what philosophy was, and what it has become because of math and science. So today I think indeed tom is right on his list. Those things are what makes up philosophy.

Originally posted by Tom
I thought the issue of "what philosophy is" was pretty straightforward. Why all this back-and-forthing?

Go to any website devoted to philosophy, and you will see that it is typically taken to be the following:

1. Logic
2. Epistemology
3. Metaphysics
4. Ethics
5. Aesthetics

 

[LogicalAtheist]

1. Logic - The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2. Epistemology - The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

3. Metaphysics - An underlying philosophical or theoretical principle

4. Ethics - The study of the general nature of morals

5. Aesthetics - Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Tom - and I suppose asking the pope what catholicism is is a good idea?

Those tied up into mythology aren't the best judges of it!

What mythology? There is nothing mythological or religious about any of the 5 things I listed.

2. But none of those things exist in reality, except Logic.

How is logic any more 'real' than the others?

3. Logic of reality is completely captured by mathematics. Thus logic is purposely because math is more powerful and more universal, being not in a language at all

I don't think so. The "logic of reality" is largely inductive, and mathematicians do not have much interest in that. They are interested in deductive logic as a formal system, and proving things about it. Philosophers and scientists are the ones with interest in inductive logic and reality.

4. Philosophy originally asked why before it could answer it. Since science (the scientific method) not only asks why (and with standards of why) but it also makes a logical empirical and mathetmatical (if possible) attempt to answer it.

The scientific method is considered a product of philosophy.

6. Because of this, those areas of philosophy have been overrun.

Science and mathematics have not overrun any of those things. What scientific theory answers moral questions (ethics)? What equation gives us an account of what it means to "know" something (epistemology)? What experiment answers people's questions about the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics)? What deduction gives us an appreciation of art and music (aesthetics)?

Answer: None, on all counts.

Looks like we still need philosophy after all!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I posted a statement and I didn't read TOM close enough. Stupid me, I misread.

--LA.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Tom - I got those definitions from Oxford, not a good idea to question them, as all other dictionaries are merely product sof the oxford.

Nowhere did I question the definitions. If you look closely, you will see that I am questioning what you posted.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

My mistake. I misread, you're right. I retract previous statement.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is exactly what a philosophy is about - set of BELIEFS.

Science does not use beliefs.

Your first (quoted) statement is an unsubstantiated opinion, and nothing more. Your second statement is just wrong, because Science is based on the belief that some phenomena can be understood to some point of accuracy, along with the belief that there is an objective Universe.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - What one uses a given system for (religion etc...) isn't as important as what the system itself is for.

Those systems, religious mythology, pseudoscience etc..., aren't designed to give truth. The former is merely stories, and the latter is a lazy attempt at truth, but not one fueled by a true desire for it.

You are dead wrong about reasoning systems, as it's use is determined by what one chooses to use it for. Besides, you misinterpereted religion. It is an attempt to gain wisdom, through belief in some kind of deity.

As far as understanding philosophy. While you may have used an old world definition, there's a reason definintions and terminology changes.

The meaning of "Philosophy" has not changed.

Your definition serves no real purpose now, as the idea of philosophy has been smashed by science.

You cannot be "smashed" by a sub-set of yourself. Besides, Scientists still get PhD's don't they?

As Alex put it, if philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, or the "why", then any fool can pursue something or ask why.

I can pursue becoming God, pursue ruling the world, becoming a billionaire, and ask any question no matter how stupid.

But this has no value, it doesn't matter. Philosophy doesn't matter.

It's miniscule in comparison to the power of science. The answers, not the pursuit but the reaching of the goal.

Science is not the "answers", it is just another way of pursuing them (just think of the Scientific Method).

Furthermore, to say that philosophy asks why, doesn't point out it's not the only thing that asks why (and it's certainly not the best thing that asks why).

Science asks why, it's call a hypothesis. But while it asks it also answers. Philosophy just asks, asks anything at anyone, it is the pursuit, but makes no claim to reaching the goal - and it never does.

You keep on stating your opinion about Science and Philosophy, without anything to back it up. This must be an emotional issue for you, because I know that you're more rational than this.

mentat said: "So what? "Religion" bares many contradicting beliefs "under it's wing" - as does science (just take the contraversy between "string" and "point-particle" theories, for example)."

Ah, but we have a difference. (a given) religion is merely confined to the pages of a book. Exactly as it says, so is in this world of this religion. If a contradiction exists, and the religion itself (the text) doesn't conclude the contradiction, the contradiction forever exists.

Science is WAY different. Science has contradictions. But science isn't the pages of a book, it isn't a publication finished at set in stone forever. Science is in reality. And science scrutinizes itself for the correct answers. It attempts to fix it's contradictions.

You're comparing the pages of a book, to the dynamic world of reality. It's like comparing a painting to a football game.

I wasn't comparing anything to the "pages of a book", you were the one who defined religion as this.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Mentat...

1. You contradicted yourself. You stated that a reasoning system is determined by what it's used for. Yet you say philosophy is some old-world definition, and NOT what it is used for, today.

2. The meaning of philosophy has DRAMATICALLY changed. Not only has it changed but it's become completely DIFFERENT things.

3. Science is NOT a subset of philosophy. You are making the mistake equal to that of one assuming that because bats and birds have wings, they both come from a common ancestor.

4. Science took what philosophy attempted and did it better. Not only did it do it better, it did MORE. It asks the why AND answers it.

5. It's not an emotional issue. No one here is debating (realistically) what science is. What people are doing is not choosing weather the old-word definition of philosophy is right, and thus philosophy is dead, or if the current concepts of philosophy are right, in which case it has little or nothing to do with science.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat...

1. You contradicted yourself. You stated that a reasoning system is determined by what it's used for. Yet you say philosophy is some old-world definition, and NOT what it is used for, today.

My definition is exactly what Philosophers use Philosophy for today. There is no contradiction here.

2. The meaning of philosophy has DRAMATICALLY changed. Not only has it changed but it's become completely DIFFERENT things.

No, your definition of Philosophy, and the "common-usage" of the term are DRAMATICALLY different from what Philosophy is and has always been.

3. Science is NOT a subset of philosophy. You are making the mistake equal to that of one assuming that because bats and birds have wings, they both come from a common ancestor.

If Philosophy is the pursuit of Wisdom (as even Alexander has agreed with me on), then Science is indeed a sub-set of it.

4. Science took what philosophy attempted and did it better. Not only did it do it better, it did MORE. It asks the why AND answers it.

Science doesn't ask or answer "why" questions. It only answers "what" and "how" questions.

5. It's not an emotional issue.

And would you really admit it, if it was?

No one here is debating (realistically) what science is.

So your approach is unrealistic?

What people are doing is not choosing weather the old-word definition of philosophy is right, and thus philosophy is dead

What?! If the old-world (and current, as far as any real Philosopher is concerned) definition is correct, then Philosophy is alive and well, as are it's sub-sets.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist;
3. Science is NOT a subset of philosophy. You are making the mistake equal to that of one assuming that because bats and birds have wings, they both come from a common ancestor.

I don’t see how college-folk can have this view.


Below is a link to a current college level philosophy text. You can even take quizzes, way cool;

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/076742011x/student_view0/chapter1/multiple_choice.html

From the first chapter;

….Thus, philosophy once encompassed nearly everything that counted as human knowledge.
This view of philosophy persisted for over two thousand years. The full title of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principles, in which Newton set forth his famous theories of mechanics, mathematics, and astronomy, is Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Even by the seventeenth century, then, physics was still thought of as a variety of philosophy. Likewise, nearly every subject currently listed in college catalogs at some point would have been considered philosophy….
However, philosophy can no longer claim those subject areas that have grown up and moved out of it….


That last sentence is telling.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

1. Give us your definition of philosophy.

2. Science is absolutely positively NOT a sub-set of philosophy. At very very least philosophy is a subset of science.

3. Science ABSOLUTELY asks "why". To say science doesn't ask "why" is absurd. Re-think that immediately!

4. Philosophy as originally used as asking "why" but never EVER answering. It only asked. Then (still before science) people began to include a why. Because they had no scientific method, there why was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY opinion. THus we have the great philosophers who wrote books on THEIR OPINION of how things work.

5. Now we have science. It ASKS THE WHY, and also answers it under self-scrutinizing means.

Science took the why and made it better, gave it a proper universal method, and also answered it.

These are irrefutable!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Boulder - I don't know if you were coinciding with me or not. But indeed this sentence from the cited text says exactly what I am explaining:

"However, philosophy can no longer claim those subject areas that have grown up and moved out of it…."


Exactly. Science develop in philosophy just like a baby. But science was BORN later, and become bigger and better and smashed it's mother in the face and walked out the freakin' door.


Booayah!

 

[BoulderHead]

My view is more that it was conceived and birthed in philosophy, then grew up and bought it's own house.