What Philosophy IS and What it IS NOT

[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.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by 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!

Science does not ask "why" questions. It only asks "what" and "how" questions.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mentat
Science does not ask "why" questions. It only asks "what" and "how" questions.

Mentat - I recall you saying you're young?

I have an entire education in science.

I used it everyday in my educational career thus far.

I am still getting an education (in neurological medicine).

I use science to answer the question of "why" everyday.

So does everyone in my class, all 20,000 of them.

Saying science doesn't ask why is below the belt. It's beyond questioning.

I do it every single day. And everyday (I am required) to get the answers to every why question I ask.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by 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.

As I suspected. You have absolutely no idea what philosophy is. It has been becoming apparent the more you post. You really should do some study here. I recommend doing some reading. I can make some recommendations if you'd like. Because your conception of philosophy is very much the same as a laymans. I run into the same misconceptions among people who were lucky to get through high school. I myself had it back in the day.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Fliption - Your insults only make me care about you less. You're on ignore.

But since I get the last word, I understand philosophy just fine. it isn't what you WANT it to be, it is what it is.

I am more than twice your age, and probably have triple or more the years of education.

One who questions my education gets blocked. Bubye forever!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - I recall you saying you're young?

I have an entire education in science.

I used it everyday in my educational career thus far.

I am still getting an education (in neurological medicine).

I use science to answer the question of "why" everyday.

So does everyone in my class, all 20,000 of them.

Saying science doesn't ask why is below the belt. It's beyond questioning.

I do it every single day. And everyday (I am required) to get the answers to every why question I ask.

I would bet that you are answering "how" questions and not "why" questions. It's easy to see how you can get these mixed up. Let's see if I can help clear it up. Science answers "what" and "how". So it can tell us "what" something is and "how" it works. What Mentat means by "why" questions are questions about "purpose". Science does not make such judgements. Science can tell us that the universe exists and how it all works (maybe some day) but it will never tell us "why" it exists. But using the word why can be confusing because I can ask "Why is the sky blue?" and science can answer that but what it's really answering is "how" is it blue. Not why. The answer to "how is the sky blue?" would be a scientific explanation. The answer to "Why is the sky blue?" would either be 1) there is no reason or 2) blue is the creator's favorite color.

BTW, philosophy created the scientific method. It is a philosophical exercise that says "the scientifc method is the best way to acquire experiential knowledge of the world."

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Fliption - Your insults only make me care about you less. You're on ignore.

But since I get the last word, I understand philosophy just fine. it isn't what you WANT it to be, it is what it is.

I am more than twice your age, and probably have triple or more the years of education.

One who questions my education gets blocked. Bubye forever!

Lol. I was trying to offer you some help so that you will stop burdening the philsophy forum. It is difficult for any interesting philosophy discussions to take place here when you can't even understand what it is and keep railroading the forum with your hard headed nonsense. I don't think I insulted you. I certainly didn't intend to. You do your own credibility enough harm that I don't need to.

Putting people on block in a philosophy forum. LOL! Twice my age my ^**!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Yes, twice your age. Yes, triple your education.

Maybe you didn't take notice of what this topic was about.

I won't take the effort to open your blocked post again.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
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.

This is not true. People could use logical principles well before the scientific method was ever invented.

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

I agree that science answers "Why?". Let's look at 2 sets of 2 questions:

a) Why are there letters on my computer screen?
b) How did letters get on my computer screen?

Both questions can be answered with the same answer.

a) How does a computer work?
b) Why does a computer work?

Both questions can be answered with the same answer.

Now, if you use "why" to exclusively refer to purpose, then "why" is not covered in science. However, it is not necessarily covered in philosophy, either. There is no requisite set of beliefs, such as the belief that things have purpose, in philosophy. It may be one's philosophy that there is no purpose, or that there is no divine purpose, and the only purpose is that which sentient beings have given.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Yes, twice your age. Yes, triple your education.

Maybe you didn't take notice of what this topic was about.

I won't take the effort to open your blocked post again.

This is just childish LA. You have no idea how old I am nor what my education is. Why must you be so insulting and arrogant? And just in case you do read this... blocking me or anyone else does nothing to us. Everyone else still gets to read our rebuttals. LOL. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't mean everyone stops laughing at you.

For anyone else reading this, please go to this thread and add your comments.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2486

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - I recall you saying you're young?

Let's not make that an issue.

I have an entire education in science.

I used it everyday in my educational career thus far.

I am still getting an education (in neurological medicine).

I use science to answer the question of "why" everyday.

Give me an example (just one) of a "why" question that Science can answer.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
Give me an example (just one) of a "why" question that Science can answer.

Just awaiting a response to the above (quoted). Also, I wanted to get this thread back on the first page, in case someone didn't get a chance to read the posts.

 

[Tisthammerw]

Philosophy of Science is about science

Originally posted by Alexander
third link is sloppy description of how science works.

I'll bite. How exactly is the third link (at http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html for those who wish to see it) sloppy?

I originally created the paper as a high school project some years back, made some revisions here and there along the way. Granted, I do have some seriously overdue revisions to make, but what exactly is wrong with it? What fact does it report incorrectly?

So, turns out that philosophers of science do not even know science.

I would wager to say the opposite is true. Often times it seems that philosophers of science know more about science than scientists do (as it pertains to the system of science itself). For instance, I have heard repeatedly from various scientific writings (by scientists) quoting Popper saying that falsification is essential to a scientific theory, so that if a scientific theory cannot be empirically falsified it is not a legitimate scientific theory. While at first this might sound reasonable (as to a young science student like myself, until I was disillusioned when I read some good material on the philosophy of science) this suffers from serious problems, among them the Duhem-Quine problem preventing one to conclusively falsify a theory by empirical means. Another case of ignorance I have encountered is the underdetermination of theories and the role of non-empirical philosophical (though perhaps rational) values in theory acceptance.

And this is understandable - working knowledge of science is not required by their job description, because a philosophy is HUMANITY - subjective discipline of opinions, not of facts as science.

Philosophy does concern itself with facts, some of which science is utterly dependent upon (e.g. whether or not knowledge is even possible is a philosophical question). Furthermore, philosophy of science is a discipline that examines the system of science itself (its assumptions, limitations, structure, how it works, etc.). Of course it demands knowledge of science.

 

[nickdanger]

I'd like to point out that what Alex and LA are espousing is unsubstantiated by science. In other words, they are promoting a philosophy that philosophy sucks. Rather humorous really.

Come now...I believe it was Pascal who said 'to ridicule philosophy is truly philosophical".