Page 1 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

mar00
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 603
Location: Germany

28 Oct 2011, 3:48 pm

There is a ton of definitions for a word philosophy. Seems to me that many tend to equal thinking to philosophy. Any debate is useless until all notions are clearly defined. If it is used in a sense of being an academic discipline in which it should then science has little to do with it (but not the other way round). But of course one may say that *everyting is a philosophy* and in a way one would be right as well - then science is a philosophy but that is about it. I hope that makes sense.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

28 Oct 2011, 4:36 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
mar00 wrote:
My eyes bled reading it. Whoever wrote that article has apparently never studied nor science nor philosophy. The ignorance of people who do not bother understanding science is amazing. Science is not a branch of philosophy – it was hundreds of years ago.

I don't know that defining science into the same pool with philosophy is useful but, at least 'enlightened philosophy' is what you have as the steps between experiments, the questions asked to be answered.

It could well be that I have absolutely no idea what philosophy is and that I'm rose-coloring the heck out of it by redifining it as every useful non-experimental thought but, I at least *think* Merriam Webster is sighting something pretty similar to what I'm saying:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1319823119
Quote:
Definition of PHILOSOPHY
1a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>
4a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group


I looked for the definition of "Philosophy" in "The Encyclopedia of Philosophy" (4 double-volumes, 4,000 pages). The extended definition is 84 (big) pages long, with a "short" preview section 10 pages long.
The bold headings in the preview include:
The Platonic conception of philosophy
Philosophy as the knowledge of ultimates
The philospher and the sage
The idea of a philosophical method
Philosophy and value
The philosopher as adviser
Philosophy and the special sciences
Philosophy as the science of man
Philosophy as the science of sciences
Philosophy as speculative cosmology
Philosophy as a theory of language
Philosophy as the theory of critical discussion
Fields of philosophy
Description, prescription, and rational reconstruction
The variety of philosophical tasks

I took a university class on "Philosophy", which in the class examined two questions:
What is Art?, and,
What is science?

The Art part was centered on Tolstoy's "What is Art?", and about 16 referral books.
The Science part was centered on Von Frisch's "The Dancing Bees", and of any other books available.

I had already read the books, and I was further interested in apiaries. An old riddle that a "Little Blue Book" from Girard, Kansas (famous publisher) included was the "Hexagonal Mystery of Honeycombs", or something of such. I had just studied "minimal surfaces" in some other field, and I wondered why to spend money on special "comb sheets" if the bugs already did it on their own, and I previously had a trained BumbleBee.

I didn't like the Art part of the lectures and exams, and I was disgruntled when a fellow student didn't read one of the 16 books, but had only asked me what was in it (only 4 students out of about 30 read the book, as it was "restricted" and "rare"). She received a higher score on a test section about that book than I did, and the instrutor had been "flirting" with her. After this exam, around 60% of the class dropped the class, when the professor wanted us to discuss our papers with him for correction and further writings, so I asked him if I could present a sample writing to see if I was "close to the mark" on what he was looking for. I decided to plagiarize a section of a famous book he had in his office, so when he read the sample and went into his expected rant about how bad it was, I told him I was just asking to see if he was looking for us to follow Bertrand Russell, as in the book on his self, as he had just called pages from Russell the works of a stupid moron.

After the secondary papers, the class was down to very few students, so with the "Bees", I took a strict Skinnerian view, and grilled the professor on each "bee issue". The most interest, and the most laughs, involved whether or not bees "think", as I contended that my BumbleBee must have "thought" I was a flower for my providing "nectar", and that bees do not "make" honeycombs in surfaced hexagons, and hence, do not "economize" on beeswax. I made the demand that if bees get the credit for hexagonal surfaced honeycombs for beeswax economics, I wanted the credit for blowing spherical bubbles in order to economize on my bubble-stuff expenses.

On campus, everybody in that year's philosophy class was identified as being "Son's of Bees".

The philosophical conundrum, on whether "to make" does or does not include seperate "non-made" consequential phenomena, remains to this day.

Tadzio



Hyram_Inesh
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 164
Location: Ant Hill

28 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm

Obres wrote:
StonedMoonie wrote:
Science is a branch of philosophy. The modern educational is left-wing scientistic garbage, however, and it has turned many intelligent, able people into barbarians.

Scientists sneer at philosophy more because they don't understand it, and it's unpopular among their generally left-wing cliques, than anything else. They don't realise without the laws of non-contradiction they're just jerking off in an isolation tank.


You're right, I don't understand what the hell you're talking about. Maybe if I had a little of whatever you're on...

Btw, how's that search for the meaning of life coming along? Did philosophy solve that one yet? Because science figured out how the universe began, where humans came from, and how to talk with a guy halfway around the world in real-time. So what exactly has philosophy done?


science has done a whole lot, but it's still in a way a incomplete philosophy. It's always changing, whats true today might not be tomorrow. Not saying that makes philosophy better, I love science just as much if not more.

I'm just too indecisive *sigh*............

alright bye guys :D



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

28 Oct 2011, 5:44 pm

you can talk about this as the difference between philosophy - small p- and Philosophy. Small-p philosophy includes science, whereas Philosophy is intellectual masturbation about how many theoretical angels can dance on the head of a theoretical pin, with no way of observing or testing the question. It can be fun, but it has exaxtly zero bearing on reality; a perfect example of Philosophy is the idea that natural, ubiquitous human biases mean that reality does not exist (ie, we cannot perceive reality as it actually, exactly exists, therefore reality does not exist). It's like the difference between democratic and Democratic ideology; one is a great idea that opens governing to everyone, and the other is a corrupt political ideology of paying lip-service to democracy in order to stay in power.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

28 Oct 2011, 6:20 pm

Philosophy and Science are both man made just like Religion 8)



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

28 Oct 2011, 6:26 pm

Joker wrote:
Philosophy and Science are both man made just like Religion 8)


So now you jumped camp and became an atheist.

Is that a mark against Cain or against Science?

Tadzio



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

28 Oct 2011, 6:34 pm

Tadzio wrote:
Joker wrote:
Philosophy and Science are both man made just like Religion 8)


So now you jumped camp and became an atheist.

Is that a mark against Cain or against Science?

Tadzio


Neither and I am not a atheist, I am a judeo christian it is common knowlege that Science and Philosphy are man made the Myans are the ones who made math history will tell you that my friend.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

28 Oct 2011, 6:58 pm

Joker wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
Joker wrote:
Philosophy and Science are both man made just like Religion 8)


So now you jumped camp and became an atheist.

Is that a mark against Cain or against Science?

Tadzio


Neither and I am not a atheist, I am a judeo christian it is common knowlege that Science and Philosphy are man made the Myans are the ones who made math history will tell you that my friend.


There is that video on YouTube about the vegetarian that only eats chicken.

The Gods created Philosophy and Science. I was ambushed by the spectres in the spectrum of the "Spectrum of Autism". Most all concepts are from the Gods, maybe the recent Prion isn't (no, it's a God too!).

Tadzio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1nFSF-sUaE



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

28 Oct 2011, 7:01 pm

Tadzio wrote:
Joker wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
Joker wrote:
Philosophy and Science are both man made just like Religion 8)


So now you jumped camp and became an atheist.

Is that a mark against Cain or against Science?

Tadzio


Neither and I am not a atheist, I am a judeo christian it is common knowlege that Science and Philosphy are man made the Myans are the ones who made math history will tell you that my friend.


There is that video on YouTube about the vegetarian that only eats chicken.

The Gods created Philosophy and Science. I was ambushed by the spectres in the spectrum of the "Spectrum of Autism". Most all concepts are from the Gods, maybe the recent Prion isn't (no, it's a God too!).

Tadzio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1nFSF-sUaE


So you believe in God so do I I believe that God allows man to understand the unkown that the human brain can't comperhand.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

29 Oct 2011, 5:01 am

LKL wrote:
you can talk about this as the difference between philosophy - small p- and Philosophy. Small-p philosophy includes science, whereas Philosophy is intellectual masturbation about how many theoretical angels can dance on the head of a theoretical pin, with no way of observing or testing the question.

Unless you're being particularly sparing in how you use big 'P' I don't know that I can agree with this either. We still have all kinds of abstract concepts or areas where we're trying to reflect on our subjective selves, subjective wants, or the substance of how cultures have shaped themselves; you find some philosophers who (just one example) get heavy into the examination of languages themselves and their structure in trying to determine the influence things like this had, currently have, and can have. You also have a lot of people looking at issues like...say.....nihilism, prioritization of what we have around us, etc. trying to determine if they can unravel some of our inherent problems from that standpoint (which I suppose is more an edge where philosophy veers toward psychology). You have a variety of big questions still floating out there that aren't theistic, they are - to my best guess - big 'P' and they're issues that can't be resolved by being boiled in a crucible or burned on a wire to see what visible light spectra come off of them.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

29 Oct 2011, 6:52 pm

If a question can be tested - whether nihilism is healthy for an individual or a society, for example - it's entering into science; if it can't be tested, it's a mental exercise of no consequence. Anyone can make an untestable assertion and be countered by some other untestable assertion by someone else, and there's no way besides personal preference to tell who's correct. It can be fun to play with one's own brain this way, but to claim that it reveals anything other than how one's own individual brain works is silly.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

29 Oct 2011, 9:52 pm

^^^^

You cannot argue for science with science unless you intend to beg the question; science presupposes the importance of logic, testability and marh. When you set up your elaborate rules as to why science is primary you are actually inadvertently elucidating a philosophical position.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

29 Oct 2011, 11:05 pm

There are some things we take for granted with science, most importantly that the world will continue to behave according to the same rules as it has in the past. If I set my hand on a hot burner, I will feel pain just like I did last time. That kind of assumption, though, is a far, far cry from what Philosophy majors get into. Claiming that all thought is just philosophy is overstepping your scope of practice.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

29 Oct 2011, 11:25 pm

LKL wrote:
There are some things we take for granted with science, most importantly that the world will continue to behave according to the same rules as it has in the past. If I set my hand on a hot burner, I will feel pain just like I did last time. That kind of assumption, though, is a far, far cry from what Philosophy majors get into. Claiming that all thought is just philosophy is overstepping your scope of practice.

What rules? This isn't necessarily true--it all depends on circumstances. You set your hand on a hot burner, there's no guarantee you'll feel the same pain next time since it's entirely possible that you can damage the nerves enough that you won't feel anything. Metaphorically speaking, of course, but science doesn't know EVERYTHING.

...which is, in part, the beauty of the discipline.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

29 Oct 2011, 11:50 pm

Science doesn't claim to know everything. The only people who say things like 'scientists think they know everything' are non-scientists; actual scientists know better. For every question we answer, multiple new ones arise; what scientists do know are a lot of things that lay people apparently do not, like what causes the tides to go in and out (thanks, BillO, for a bad example that will last for a decade).

Wrt. the burner, hopefully I'll snatch my hand away both times before permanent damage is done. That aside, though, I think you got my point, which was pretty much spelled out in the first sentence: given the similar causes, similar effects should occurr. If they do not, something has probably changed. Sometimes that change can be quite small - sometimes, even so small that we can't yet measure it. But the rule stands; it is the main assumption of science, and it has not put us to shame in the centuries of its use. Science has achieved more to benefit humans in a couple of centuries than millenia of Philosophical navel-gazing.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

30 Oct 2011, 12:27 am

LKL wrote:
If a question can be tested - whether nihilism is healthy for an individual or a society, for example - it's entering into science; if it can't be tested, it's a mental exercise of no consequence.

Lets take one thing as a given: human beings are different. Some people can, by their own circuitry, get on fine with nihilism. Others can't. Some people decide to really delve into finding the best and closest to non-BS outlooks to entertain and, being they're out there, they decide to nuance and make suggestions in that case; clearly not telling people 'this is how you're supposed to think' but 'this is how you can deal with dystonic nihilism'.

I have to assume that in what I quoted you were skipping words, I at least *figure* you meant that its a 'mental exercise of no consequence' in relationship to science as opposed to a mental exercise of no consequence in a literal absolute value sense. To argue the first would be fine, science is science, dealing with human psychological needs is much less empirical. If and when people allude to anything outside of science as inconsequential though - it seems utterly incoherent; we are conscious beings, consciousness is subjective, consciousness brings up sets of needs that follow subjective ends. Its not to say that the rules completely unravel when measuring 'us', just that it is us measuring us and until we have perfect understanding of the human brain and self to where we have equations that sub in for all of this (if that will ever even be possible), I don't think it'll be fit to say its either science or its rubbish.

LKL wrote:
Anyone can make an untestable assertion and be countered by some other untestable assertion by someone else, and there's no way besides personal preference to tell who's correct. It can be fun to play with one's own brain this way, but to claim that it reveals anything other than how one's own individual brain works is silly.

What tends to happen here - sorry if it sounds like I'm speaking the obvious, sometimes though it needs to be clarified - is that we have objects, self-evidents like 1 * A = A, that we can manipulate. I'm not quite as field-initiated as some other posters here so I don't know the exact proper name for this but, you can still get a lot done by taking... I guess proofs?....into account. When you can't make a claim and then boil it in an Erlenmeyer flask or take physical temperature readings on it you can at least work on in from angles that are well....more mathematical in nature? Might not be the perfect term and I hope no one's going to try breaking bottles on my head over the pedantic failings of my posts and thoughts but I'd like to think what I'm trying to get across here is still coming across.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin