What's is this sub-forum all about?

[Constantinos]

A way of thinking might more properly be called a philosophical paradigm. In a paradigm not only collectively accepted facts (insofar there are facts in philosophy) are present, but more generally as I mentioned a usage of language. In a usage of language some terms make sense in a certain way, and other terms relate to them logically in such-and-such a way which might very well be nonsense and nonsensical argumentation in other paradigms. A paradigm is more or less defined by the usage of language it contains.

That's interesting! Is there a paradigm collectively accepted by all(or most) philosophers for thinking about certain problems? I've always thought that philosophers never agreed to anything. You say there are collectively accepted facts in philosophy. It'd really like to know these so, if you have a link that describes these facts, please share!

 

[disregardthat]

So, philosophy is merely a composite of various paradigms? If so, then would you call philosophy an 'evolution' of paradigms?

Some probably would, but I don't. I said that philosophy in its prime is essentially criticism of certain kinds of usage of language, which is perhaps what you meant by 'evolution' of paradigms.

Constantinos: A philosophical disagreement does not always consist in a disagreement of paradigms however. Furthermore, "facts" is not a proper description of what philosophers may agree upon. Rather, the agreement consists of the proper usage of terms, and how they relate to each other.

 

[Willowz]

I'm interested on what basis can philosophers criticize paradigms. I mean, that in itself requires another kind of 'paradigm'. It all seems so circular.

 

[Pythagorean]

who cares about philosophers? this sub-forum is about philosophy, which permeates all disciplines.

Most philosophy is an attempt to sort the amalgamate of assumptions that we develop through experiencing a skewed sample space (constrained spatially by the limited reach of our perceptive fields and temporally by the number of summers we've experienced). We tend to use our imagination to predict future outcomes.

 

[formal]

1) Philosophy is distinguished mainly by being dependent on reasoned arguments rather than empirical evidence.
2) It considers what is rationally or logically possible as well as what is provenly actual.
.

1) Can you give me just one example of empirical evidence that does not require reasoned argument?
.. b) (viceversa) ...do you believe in a priori knowledge?
2) what is reason (and logic(s) its codified principles), in what is it different from commonsense?

3) When you state a Law of Physics are you doing Physics or Phylosophy (Metaphysics)? remember that metaphysics is just The First Principles
... b) when you are framing a law of (meta)-Physics in (language) words are you doing physics?
4) When you give a definition in Physics are you doing Physics or Semantics ?

has Phylosphy been abjured? When? by Whom?
The Most Revered Physicist of them all wrote a book about what?,must I recall it?
...principles ...Philosophiae naturalis.

So, when you are just doing physics?

(P.S. thread "time exists?" was moved to phylosophy, then, after 57 posts, it was locked by a mentor with these words "...it is even less of a philosophical question than ...a physical one") !

 

[apeiron]

1) Can you give me just one example of empirical evidence that does not require reasoned argument?

I wouldn't expect so. Science is modelling so must depend on metaphysical concepts and formal descriptions of causal relationships. That is what models are made of.

The diffence is science is reasoned argument that demands empirical test, while philosophy - among other things - is about seeing how far you can get with just rational tests of an argument.

So, when you are just doing physics?

I would say when you are simply applying a theory rather than thinking about how something else might be a deeper view.

It's the difference between forging a tool and using a tool.

 

[formal]

1) I wouldn't expect so.
2) science is reasoned argument that demands empirical test,
while philosophy - among other things - is about seeing how far you can get with just rational tests of an argument.
3) I would say when you are simply applying a theory
4) It's the difference between forging a tool and using a tool.

1) that is equivalent to saying "you are right, I cannot produce one single example, but I am not prepared to admit it"
2),3) you are ,sorry but, again saying "I was wrong but I would climb a mirror before I admit it. In the bolded text you are admitting it, (unconsciously, I hope.):
you MUST always do metaphysics, before doing what you consider (right or wrong) physics.

(hope #4 is superfluous)

 

[apeiron]

1) that is equivalent to saying "you are right, I cannot produce one single example, but I am not prepared to admit it"
2),3) you are ,sorry but, again saying "I was wrong but I would climb a mirror before I admit it. In the bolded text you are admitting it, (unconsciously, I hope.):
you MUST always do metaphysics, before doing what you consider (right or wrong) physics.

(hope #4 is superfluous)

You seem a little hard of understanding here.

Of course the ideas must ground the impressions. And the impressions in turn build the ideas.

You appear to want to frame this as an either/or situation, whereas I have stressed that reasoned argument and empirical observation are the naturally complementary components of any modelling, of any attempt to know reality.

 

[Evo]

formal is the banned crackpot simpatico.