Disrespect of philosophy

@UnMechanics,

Science without philosophy is like trying to walk through the woods on a clear night with the moon out and no flashlight. Sure, at times everything is illuminated, but usually only the obvious. Without the flashlight much remain hidden to the observer, and at time the observer can be blinded by darkness. Philosophy without science is kind of like walking into the same woods with a flashlight, but the woods turned out to be a giant cement slab devoid of any objects other than concrete.

Philosophy without science is kind of a mental masturbation. Science gives philosophy fodder in the form of evidence in which to ground ideas within. Without evidence, the philosopher must construct their own, which then allows others to come along and refute with no real evidence, just more constructions. Eventually someone comes along with the capabilities to prove that all the series of philosophers did was make up a massive pile of words that had no meaning in the real world.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;40897 wrote:

Science without philosophy is like trying to walk through the woods on a clear night with the moon out and no flashlight. Sure, at times everything is illuminated, but usually only the obvious.

Do you have any concrete examples of this? (as opposed to the metaphor of the flashlight and the moon). It seems to me that science appropriated a certain amount from philosophy, but it's now entirely self sufficient from it at an intellectual level, a methodological level, and a practical level. The application of logic, reason, axioms, methodology isn't something proprietary to philosophy.

Gray zones, such as epistemology and ethics can be meeting points between science and philosophy, but this is different than some kind of inherent necessity within one domain or the other.

Philosophy, when speculative, need not rely on science either. Of course the 'immediacy' of science has deeply affected the applicability of philosophy in modernity -- after all, if there is no reference to reality, modern thought tends to be very skeptical, and flights of reason have very much lost their lustre -- this is the central theme to postmodernism. This is why experimentation and surveys (i.e. the scientific method has entered into philosophy recently.

@Aedes,

Truth is Light, and light will set One free.

Turn out the lights next time your in a room your not familiar with, dark brings only more uncertainty where as light or truth guides One with certainty towards the door or freedom.

Concrete!

=
MJA

If you do find the door, be forewarned that the first step out of the box is a real doozy.
It's infinite AAAAAAH!

@MJA,

The division between different branchs of knowlage is an artificial one, for the conveniance of the human mind. In reality, as all knowlage comes from our understanding, observation and thoughts upon the universe, all of this reflects the unified whole of the cosmos- our knowlage is an imperfect and very incomplete reflection of this whole. In the past philosophy and scince had few divisions between them. Even great scientists of the enlightenment, or rather natural philosophers, rarely limited themselves to a merely empircal compherension of the universe. It is often conveniant to persue information in a purely empircal fashion, but this limitation is only that. Scince has been applied, or been atempted to be applied, to nearly every aspect of human existance and knowlage, and yet it is somehow a sacred subject, purely self sufficent, which murky old-fashioned philosophy has no buisness meddling with.

@UnMechanics,

The Enlightenment was a branching off point, though, that's what it's best known for.

In the subsequent oh 400 years, science and philosophy are truly separate without any possible reconciliation except where they have converged.

This comes up here fairly often. And no one here has been able to present an argument that shows that in 2009 Science and Philosophy are one and the same.

avatar6v7 wrote:

Scince has been applied, or been atempted to be applied, to nearly every aspect of human existance and knowlage, and yet it is somehow a sacred subject, purely self sufficent, which murky old-fashioned philosophy has no buisness meddling with.

Huh, so you're saying that science has been applied to the story of Adam and Eve? Where? And has science messed with the question of whether reality is a unity or a plurality? Where? Has science attempted to define "The Good"? Where?

Philosophy can mess with whatever the human imagination can invent. But that doesn't make it science.

Science can only mess with what it can test, observe, and infer from these tests and observations. And that doesn't make it philosophy.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

The Enlightenment was a branching off point, though, that's what it's best known for.

In the subsequent oh 400 years, science and philosophy are truly separate without any possible reconciliation except where they have converged.

This comes up here fairly often. And no one here has been able to present an argument that shows that in 2009 Science and Philosophy are one and the same.

The split between scince and philosophy is an artificial one. Useful, but not inherant, as no such split exists in nature. I would call that an argument, one that you may dispute, but have not succesfully challenged so far.

Aedes wrote:

Huh, so you're saying that science has been applied to the story of Adam and Eve? Where? And has science messed with the question of whether reality is a unity or a plurality? Where? Has science attempted to define "The Good"? Where?

hue-man wrote:

Science and Morality:

Reinventing Morality

you posted on this thread here with your own link:perplexed: I must confessed I am baffled. As for adam and eve, there is a wealth of scintific and archealogical work done in relation to the bible.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

The split between scince and philosophy is an artificial one. Useful, but not inherant, as no such split exists in nature.

Why are we talking about nature? This isn't like asking the question of whether foxes and wolves are both canines. Science and Philosophy are human undertakings. Back when natural questions were speculative and observation was much less developed, then it would be much more appropriate to call science a part of philosophy. But that's water under the bridge -- at a functional, intellectual, educational, and societal level, they have nearly nothing in common now.

Quote:

I would call that an argument, one that you may dispute, but have not succesfully challenged so far.

There's nothing really to challenge. As usually happens on this forum, we agree deep down, but we're applying terms differently. You and I both know what science and philosophy are functionally. We just differ in the breadth of the applicability of the word "philosophy".

Quote:

you posted on this thread here with your own link:perplexed: I must confessed I am baffled.

That article does not ask the question of "what is good". It asks biological questions about how we make that judgement. The question of what is good is impenetrable to science. The question of how we make psychological judgements is very much part of science. Apples and oranges.

Quote:

As for adam and eve, there is a wealth of scintific and archealogical work done in relation to the bible.

Again, you're wildly missing the point. A scientific corroboration of a mythical story addresses only evidence. It does not address the theology like the concept of original sin, like paradise, etc.

Even the "Eve" hypothesis in science (mitochondrial DNA ancestry) is not addressing "Adam and Eve". It's just appropriating that name.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I feel that philosophy is an expression of a given culture in a given time. It takes a lot more than ideas to change culture. Philosophy evolves in parallel with literature, art, politics, and culture, but in itself it does not change anything.

There are many examples in history whereby philosophical conclusions have changed culture, politics, art, and literature.

Why did the catholic church work so hard to repress new philosophies?

@UnMechanics,

Paul (Aedes) why do you spend time debating here on the philosophy forums if you think it's pointless?

Don't you think we need open debate of philosophical ideas? It seems that you do.

@Abolitionist,

Dear Abolitionist,

I wish there were more abolitionists in the world like you, it would be a much better world for all. I guess abolition besides being the truth of nature's equality made me think of prohibition and a story came to mind. Prohibition made the world better too.

I once contacted MADD or Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to help me pursue a law suit against the United Stated government for damages caused by the substance of alcohol. A substance primarily regulated or controlled by the Department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, which is a subsidiary department of the IRS. The US Government has the ultimate control of the manufacture, distribution, and sales of a poison that kills and destroys million of people without any liability. For revenue (IRS). Greed. Imagine That!
MADDs response to my query was that they are not apposed to alcohol, but only against automobile crashes caused by alcohol. Alcohol is OK by them they said.

Isn't that ( inserted adjective here if so desired) denial?

Anyway, try to imagine a class action law suit against the regulatory body that controls the substance that kill and destroys so terribly many people, a suit against the government itself. The controller has the ultimate responsibility of that control, but as of yet no liability at all. Try to imagine a better world, I always do.

Just a thought I guess.

I have the ultimate respect for truth, justice and the American Way, I am an American, but denial will never have a place in or for me. Ever!

=
MJA

PS: Is it time to take our government back, is it time to set ourselves free again like we did once before? I imagine there is a way, Jefferson thought so too!
God bless us All

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist;41422 wrote:

There are many examples in history whereby philosophical conclusions have changed culture, politics, art, and literature.

I think it's debatable whether it was the conclusions that caused the change. Even something like the American Revolution was fundamentally a political and economic rebellion against oppression -- and by this I mean the experience of oppression, not the idea of oppression. You couldn't have recruited an army to fight on behalf of John Locke.

Quote:

Why did the catholic church work so hard to repress new philosophies?

Because their economic and political power was based on their ability to promise salvation to the submissive and to exclude (including condemnation) the heretical. To allow alternative ideas to become popular would present people with an alternative to church hegemony, regardless of what those ideas actually were.

Case in point, the Reformation was far less a revolution of ideas as it was a political rejection of Church corruption and influence.

Abolitionist;41423 wrote:

Paul (Aedes) why do you spend time debating here on the philosophy forums if you think it's pointless?

Where did I say it was pointless?

The study of ideas, to me, is comparable to the study of art and culture, and I find all of the above interesting. The conclusions reached by the ideas are a reflection of who and where we are, and I'm interested in how the rapidly changing conditions of modernity have changed our ideas. I am not at all convinced that it was the ideas that came first. It's amazing how external things like an atomic bomb or a Newtonian revolution can change philosophy, but it's much less true in the other direction.

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Dear Abolitionist,

I wish there were more abolitionists in the world like you, it would be a much better world for all. I guess abolition besides being the truth of nature's equality made me think of prohibition and a story came to mind. Prohibition made the world better too.

I once contacted MADD or Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to help me pursue a law suit against the United Stated government for damages caused by the substance of alcohol. A substance primarily regulated or controlled by the Department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, which is a subsidiary department of the IRS. The US Government has the ultimate control of the manufacture, distribution, and sales of a poison that kills and destroys million of people without any liability. For revenue (IRS). Greed. Imagine That!
MADDs response to my query was that they are not apposed to alcohol, but only against automobile crashes caused by alcohol. Alcohol is OK by them they said.

Isn't that ( inserted adjective here if so desired) denial?

Anyway, try to imagine a class action law suit against the regulatory body that controls the substance that kill and destroys so terribly many people, a suit against the government itself. The controller has the ultimate responsibility of that control, but as of yet no liability at all. Try to imagine a better world, I always do.

Just a thought I guess.

I have the ultimate respect for truth, justice and the American Way, I am an American, but denial will never have a place in or for me. Ever!

=
MJA

PS: Is it time to take our government back, is it time to set ourselves free again like we did once before? I imagine there is a way, Jefferson thought so too!
God bless us All

alcohol is tricky, according to my ethic

an individual should be allowed to drink alcohol as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others

but some would argue correctly that drinking makes one unable to respect the rights of others - to a certain extent and in certain contexts

IMO, unless someone is driving drunk or gets so wasted that they loose control - they are doing right by the ethical directive

so preventing drunk driving and having a drink limit in bars is a good idea

but I think a person should be able to drink a beer at home or at a bar

actual blood tests of intoxication levels would be a more valid determination of whether or not a person had taken too much

drugs are a tricky issue to debate with alot of considerations

crack cocaine for instance should be banned entirely accept under voluntary research conditions whereby harm to rights is prevented by research design - because a person cannot help becoming addicted to crack and then loosing their ability to make ethical decisions

@Aedes,

Aedes;40916 wrote:

It seems to me that science appropriated a certain amount from philosophy, but it's now entirely self sufficient from it at an intellectual level, a methodological level, and a practical level. The application of logic, reason, axioms, methodology isn't something proprietary to philosophy.

I agree mostly, except for minimizing philosophy's contribution to the development of empiricism (didn't 18th century British philosophers basically invent it?), and the growing trend of scientism* amongst hardcore science types and atheists who may suggest some social philosophy or prescription is indicated by scientific discoveries.

*Scientism: the belief that science, and only science, can discover all knowable truths.

Regarding the latter point, two thinkers that come to mind are Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. Dawkins contends that Darwinism is essentially "proven," and Dennett accepts that fully (as he stated in his book Breaking the Spell). Dennett suggests that if we are purely the result of design for fitness, then all human behavior can be explained in terms of our drive for fitness superiority, and human system designs should appeal first to that priority; similarly, if we are purely physical, then why not treat people as chemical things (as observed, for instance, in the quickness to define and treat mental illness as a chemical imbalance or lack).

I suspect you mean the pure practice of science in the lab when you refer to science as being "self sufficient," but the findings of the practice can be distorted to further some scientism believer's agenda. Dawkins' hatred for religion is openly admitted by him, so it seems his insistence that Darwinistic evolution is as certain as "the Earth orbits the sun" is his attempt to rid us of religion (i.e., since all that is really proven is that life evolved, likely from a common first ancestor, and that existent life forms can make small adjustments to the environment . . . . which is entirely different from having "proven" that natural selection and random mutation-the core principles of evolution-have decided all organ designs).

So while to hypothesize and observe might remain free from philosophy, those who claim to represent science to the public are not so immune.

@LWSleeth,

I think the primary utilities of philosophy are to determine ethics and e~valuate knowledge.

The scientific method by itself is useless and meaningless without values and epistemology.

Philosophy is partly the study of thought, and psychology is still very lacking for objectively measuring our brain activity.

Even if psychology produces a completely reliable and useful model of brain function - it doesn't determine the way we think.

There is the philosophy of science...

Some might argue that we just act out of biological design and that we have no need for ethics or the study of knowledge. That we shouldn't have to demonstrate rationale and logical tests of our beliefs - that we'll just make the best decisions "naturally"...

I think metaphysics however, is pretty much poetry - though it is a useful aspect of our minds. Actively engaging in 'metaphysical practices' can provide useful information to be tested.

@UnMechanics,

Part of the problem is that ethical debate aimed at creating public policy has become inaccessible to the masses and the conclusions of laypersons lack credibility. This is by design from those in power.

Human values and philosophy of ethics-Axios Institute

the mission statement of the axios institute describes this issue somewhat

look at what is happening at the CDC and FDA, scientists are revolting against their administrators because they refuse to listen to them - so forget open rational debate about public policy

-----------------------

"I'm the decider"

"I've got political capital and now I'm going to spend it" - George Bush

"So?!" - Dick Cheney

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist;41961 wrote:

The scientific method by itself is useless and meaningless without values and epistemology.

Well, that's an exaggeration (not to mention that empiricism IS epistemology). The scientific method can help us survive, and so it is hardly useless and meaningless to our continued existence.

I think I understand you are trying to emphasize the importance of WHAT we do with our discoveries, and you are right about that. But whether what we do is ethical or not, that has nothing to do with the usefulness and meaningfulness of science.

Abolitionist;419I wrote:

think metaphysics however, is pretty much poetry - though it is a useful aspect of our minds. Actively engaging in 'metaphysical practices' can provide useful information to be tested.

Metaphysics is about the universal (or wide-ranging) principles of existence, and is not inherently poetry even if some try to make it so. Many think metaphysics is something necessarily spiritual; but if, say, you hypothesize that physicalness is the basis of all existence, then the metaphysics based on that premise will likely not be very poetic. There is absolutely no reason metaphysics can't be realistic if thinkers stick closely to experience-based propositions.

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Well, that's an exaggeration (not to mention that empiricism IS epistemology). The scientific method can help us survive, and so it is hardly useless and meaningless to our continued existence.

I think I understand you are trying to emphasize the importance of WHAT we do with our discoveries, and you are right about that. But whether what we do is ethical or not, that has nothing to do with the usefulness and meaningfulness of science.

but what determines usefulness or meaning? isn't that our values?

Can science do anything without the values that drive it?

LWSleeth wrote:

Metaphysics is about the universal (or wide-ranging) principles of existence, and is not inherently poetry even if some try to make it so. Many think metaphysics is something necessarily spiritual; but if, say, you hypothesize that physicalness is the basis of all existence, then the metaphysics based on that premise will likely not be very poetic. There is absolutely no reason metaphysics can't be realistic if thinkers stick closely to experience-based propositions.

metaphysics is about describing the subjective world using untestable theories IMO

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist;41973 wrote:

but what determines usefulness or meaning? isn't that our values? . . . Can science do anything without the values that drive it?

I assumed by "values" you meant ethics involved in applying science (since isn't that what you were talking about earlier when you said "the primary utilities of philosophy are to determine ethics and e~valuate knowledge"?); if you mix into this discussion those personal values that decide one's interest in the scientific method in the first place, then the discussion gets confused because we are talking about two things as though they are the same thing.

I disputed your stated concept that science is meaningless without ethics. If that is your intended gist, then my objection is that science has meaning as an effective/productive epistemology. Because it "works," we can assign it meaning based purely on its ability to produce accurate information (by accurate I mean: info that corresponds to reality.)

I realize by "meaning" you could be signifying something personally deeper, and I wouldn't dispute that. I am only suggesting that if, for instance, a robot were sent out from another planet to identify "things that produce knowledge," it would identify the application of science as one such thing, which means science has identity apart from the ethics of how discoveries are utilized. In fact, the reasons why science "works" has meaning to your second point.

Abolitionist;41973 wrote:

metaphysics is about describing the subjective world using untestable theories IMO

Not so. Let me see if I can communicate what metaphysics is, and an inferential technique I rely on to realistically contemplate metaphysics (just so you know where I stand, I personally feel fanciful contemplation is a waste of time).

One of my favorite online sources is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy where one can read several excellent discussions of metaphysics, such as: Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As you can see, metaphysics is that which exists as broad and constant influences that are behind, and causing-sustaining, the apparent aspects of reality. Gravity might be considered metaphysical if we consider that it sits unmanifested and invisible until mass appears, and then it always responds to mass the same. Is it a "first cause"? Now there is what is untestable at this time, but we most definitely can test the unchanging, ubiquitously-present, invisible nature of gravity, and we also know it decides hugely important factors of our existence in this physical universe.

If the metaphysical is broad and highly determinate aspects of reality, yet more or less invisible, then are we limited to (as you say) purely subjective and untestable speculations of metaphysical influences, or might there be a way to more realistically contemplate?

Above I said the fact that science "works" has metaphysical implications. If you think about it, when anything whatsoever "works" (and what doesn't work as well), it tells us something about the nature of the universe . If the universe does or doesn't support a design or activity, then we know the universe possesses or lacks certain supportive features, even if we can't directly observe those features. The fact that things with mass can't surpass the speed of light tells something about the universe.

Another interesting fact is that quantum oscillation is rhythmic. Why should it be so? I ask that so I can demonstrate the inferential technique I mentioned above. The technique is to take note of ubiquitously-true features of existence (like rhythmic oscillation), from that infer what invisible influence(s) could be causing that, and then finally begin to create a model of hidden conditions.

Using quantum oscillation, the question is, why should atoms, radiation, etc. oscillate rhythmically? Scientists seem content to explain it as simply the inherent nature of particles, but what if we think of as "space" is actually the cause of rhythm? Something we know is that if you have a string, and if want it to vibrate rhythmically, then you put it under tension. Could it be that the entire universe is subject to some kind of tension? I'm not saying that is the case, but rather I'm merely demonstrating how one can use universally observed traits to create metaphysical models (i.e., and so need not be purely subjectively speculative).

So far I've only discussed metaphysics that might determine physical manifestations, but could we apply the same technique to, say, human consciousness? That is, are there universally-present factors of consciousness we might isolate to infer something about the underlying conditions which created consciousness? That's a much more difficult proposition because of getting agreement on what traits consciousness are universally shared. I've argued that all aware beings seem devoted to feeling good (or at the very least, not feeling bad). Is there something about the nature of our origin that is grounded in feeling?

But back to the point that because science "works" it could have metaphysical implications, what we know is that centuries of purely rational speculation on the nature of reality by philosophers decided absolutely nothing (that "mental masturbation" is what I suggested in an earlier post is behind much of the disrespect for philosophy). But then, as soon as we started reasoning from experience, we began to discover reality. The realistic metaphysical hypothesis we might draw from that is that the nature of consciousness is such that it requires experience to know.

To summarize, metaphysics need not be limited to other-worldly speculations, and may be made more realistically accessible by applying a formal inferential method that stays strictly tied to actual experiences throughout every step of the reasoning process.

@LWSleeth,

i disagree that you can separate epistemology from ethics - accept in the literal form.

notice the terminology "corresponds to reality" - would any system of objectifying reality correspond if it wasn't useful?

So then, what makes it useful? Why do we continually change our system of knowledge?

we change our system of knowledge in order to accomplish our values

reliability and objectivity are only useful if they accomplish our values - otherwise we wouldn't have the scientific disciplines

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

I agree mostly, except for minimizing philosophy's contribution to the development of empiricism (didn't 18th century British philosophers basically invent it?)

There were a lot of 16th and 17th century scientists in Europe (and hundreds of years earlier in Islamic lands) who were already practicing empirical science. It's only British Empiricism that decided to make an epistemological discourse out of it.

I mean Vesalius, Harvey, Newton, Hooke, Boyle all did quite well for themselves, all being among the towering giants in the birth of science. Only Francis Bacon (of the empiricists) was a contemporary of some of the later ones, and while he was hugely influential, it was mainly on later generations.

Philosophy Forum

Disrespect of philosophy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know