Calling all philosophers...
...in particular those who know about science and theology.
A discussion I was involved in on another forum has moved away from the stuff I know about, and into unfamiliar territory. I was dragged into it by someone who wanted me to argue the case of science against a load of religious nutjobs. I was able to correct their science, but now they've started arguing about philosophy, and I have a feeling that they are disagreeing over something that none of them know anything about either. I think I could bullshit either side into submission, but that's not my style, and in particular if the scientists are actually wrong, I'd like them to know about it. The argument is about ID (Intelligent Design). The pro-ID camp claim that science is a philosophy, and ID is a philosophy, and they are both based on certain a priori assumptions. They say that it is not justified for the science crew to say that their assumptions are more valid than the ID camp's assumptions, and therefore ID should be taught in schools. The science crew claim that while science has a philosophy associated with it, and and underlying 'scientific method', science is not just philosophy plus experimental data. Now, I know I obviously know what science is and understand the scientific method, but I know very little (actually, I think nothing) about philosophy. So, if anyone would be willing to answer the following questions in very simple terms for me, I would be most grateful. What actually is philosophy? What are its underlying principles? How does it actually work? What can it tell you about, and what can't it tell you about? Apart from having an underlying philsophy of how the whole scientific method thing works, can science in any way be considered equivalent to, or a branch of, philosophy? Thanks peeps :) |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Just shoot the pro-ID people.
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
The only real assumption you have to make, other than the axioms of logic and mathematics which can really be taken as a given as they're part of the language, is Occam's Razor, which is something fairly trivial to assume - especially as it's popped up many times in theology, was created by a theologian and was originally made to prove something about god. Everything else is just window dressing.
What exact kind of ID are they talking about? The faux-science one (with an unspecified entity) or the god one? Bear in mind that there is a significant amount of evidence against both, and there is no true irreducable complexity. In addition, if it's the former, it assumes some science and can be argued against fairly simply from the point that it increases complexity not decreases it. And so on, and so forth. I must say that this is an innovative and new approach! [edit] http://meninhats.com/comics/20040825.gif [edit2] WRT what you actually asked, see the above comic strip. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
What they're actually arguing about doesn't seem to bother them at the moment. The only part I'm concerned with is clearing up the issue of whether or not science and philosophy are the same/equivalent on any level.
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Philosophy is a horribly poorly defined word. You can find yourselves arguing about entirely different things and not realising it. One of the key questions of philosophy is "what is philosophy?" Rather than define what subject philosophy concerns it's more sensible to indicate which questions philosophy is in response to. Philosophy is a response to questions concerning ultimacy. Questions about causality and about possible first causes. Any response to questions in this area are philosophical. Philosophy is a response to abstract questions. Those things which we recognise but cannot pin down and those whose inner workings are not open to empirical exploration. What is good, beautiful, right or true. Why do things happen. These types of questions are philosophical and any answer to them is philosophical as well. Even the assertion that nothing is good, beautiful, right or true, that there are no first causes and philosophy is meaningless junk is a philosophical assertion itself.
What is out there and in me, what can we know about it, what ways of describing it exist and what should we do about it? That extended question covers the five main disciplines of western philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, logic and aesthetics and finally ethics). Science could be considered to be a systematic response to an epistemological question about the nature of the universe, namely that there is something out there and we can discover what there is by observation and experimentation. ID can be considered to be an unsystematic response to an epistemological question about the nature of the universe, namely that there is something out there and we should make random unrefutable assumptions about it. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
But you would not consider the scientific method to be a form of philosophy?
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Maybe I should have made that a bit clearer - would you consider carrying out scientific studies in accordance with the scientific method to be an act of philosophizing?
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Are we talking philosophy or ideology here?
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
This isnt to say that any of these things are necessarily valid or invalid, but I think it's important to realise that they are quite different. Its not just that they are different ways of looking at the same subject - theyre often (imo) independent subjects. Its largely just a historical accident that they all share the same name. In the Western tradition going back to Greece, 'philosophy' was essentially a catch-all term used to label anything which involved the pursuit of knowledge. This is why most figures who would now be considered scientists (eg Newton, Bacon, Gallileo) classified themselves as natural philosophers. So in this sense of the term, it would be correct to view 'scientific' investigation as an aspect of philosophy. But the meaning of words can change over time, and this is not how most people use the term today. In modern academia, 'philosophy' generally names a highly specialised discipline with its own peculiar history, figures and problems, and it would be incorrect to include science under this*. But in (eg) popular culture, 'philosophy' tends to mean something more vague - perhaps one's basic approach towards life or something. And here it probably wouldnt be entirely nonsense to say that respect for science was part of ones individual 'philosophy of life'. So yeah, the answer to the question really depends on what you mean by 'philosophy'. * Although having said that, the precise relationship between academic philosophy and science is often disputed. The most common views seem to be 1) philosophy as completely independent of science, dealing with purely philosophical problems using philosophical methods (this is how much of traditional pre-Kantian philosophy would now be read), 2) philosophy as a 'critique' of science, and/or providing the foundations on which science can build (Kant and the logical positivists would be the most famous examples of this sort of thing), 3) philosophy as being mostly worthless, with the few areas worthy of study really just being branches of science in disguise (this is a fairly recent notion, with Quine being largely responsible; "philosophy of science is philosophy enough"). Quote:
Secondly, modern anglo-american academic 'philosophy' tends to follow something which resembles the classic scientific method. You have some philosophical phenomena which people thinks needs an explanation (eg, the nature of reference, the character of mental states, whatever). So, you'll normally get a person, or group of people, producing a theory which tries to tie together and solve various problems related to this phenomena. This theory will then be attacked by others working in the field, although the key difference between this and science is that the methods of refutation are generally logical, and involve thought experiments and counterfactuals rather than actual real physical experiments.You'll have people pointing out hypothetical cases which the original 'theory' fails to explain, which I suppose is functionally similar to scientists producing experimental data which conflict with established theory*. Then, the people who support the original theory will try to modify it so that it takes the new cases into account, and the literature will normally explode into something resembling Lakatos' "research programs" (or 'normal science'), with various camps of people attacking the theories of others while fleshing out the details of their own. I dont think that the primary difference between science and academic 'philosophy' is either the domain or methodology, since these things change over time. The most striking way in which they differ, aside from the use of experiments, is that science often enjoys progress and studies things which are generally useful, whereas modern philosophy doesnt (unless you want to call the demolition of bad ideas progress, which in a sense I suppose it is. But in science, bad ideas normally get replaced by better ones). However, it must be taken into account that whenever philosophy actually produces something worth bothering about, it often ends up being classified as science within a century or so. Its difficult to ask whether someone studying 'scentific stuff using the scientific method' is doing philosophy, because you immediately run into the problem of deciding what people like Leibniz, Freud, Aristotle (and maybe even Newton and Descartes) were doing. Things which we call philosophy/science today wont necessarily be classified the same way a few hundred years down the line. Personally I dislike these sort of classifications anyway and think its silly to look on philosophy as being an independent discipline, so meh. The Greeks had the right idea. * although, science sometimes uses the 'hypothetical thought-experiments' model too. Were the Bohr-Einstein debates a matter of philosophy, or science? edit: although having said all that, I doubt any of this is the sort of thing the people you mention are talking about. I think that ID supporters tend to use the 'science uses assumptions too!' line as a slightly more sophisticated version of "yeah, but thats just like your opinion!" - ie its more a way of avoiding critical examination of their beliefs than a genuine argument..rule out the entities we dont want in advance). edit2: there is a subdiscpline within academic philosophy called "Philosophy of Science" which focuses on questions regarding scientific methodology and interpretation, such as how to choose between multiple competiting theories which are all compatible with known evidence (the problem of underdetermination), issues related to reductionism and the existence of crucial experiments, induction-related problems, the effects of 'irrational' factors on the development of scientific theories, and so on. Its here where you'd find questions specifically related to the traditional scientific method (such as 'does it work?' and 'do scientists actually use it?'). |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Stephen Jay Gould : Rocks of Ages, Science and Religion in the Fullnes of life
One of the reviews http://www.kenanmalik.com/reviews/gould_rocks.html |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
The evolution issue is a good example of why Occam's Razor is problematic. A theory which has the world coming into being (all fossil records intact etc) during a brief period of divine creation will, to a certain type of person, be a lot 'simpler' and involve fewer assumptions than modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, you only need to postulate a single theoretical entity (God), and you have explained the entire history of the world! However this ignores the main problem with Creationism, which is that conflicts with our desire to have a purely naturalistic description of the universe (although 'naturalism', in practice, often just means that we rule out the entities we dont want in advance). Frameworks which necessarily involves entities which are seen as supernatural are simply impossible to take seriously in today's world, and this owes quite a lot to cultural factors. The primary objection to creationism isnt that its demonstrably wrong or in conflict with some basic presuppositions of science such as Occams Razor - it's just impossible for a reasonably educated person in the 21st century to take it seriously, regardless of how 'simple' it is, or how many entities it posulates (I would imagine that most people object to MWI quantum mechanics for similar reasons). Ask a Christian to consider the possibility that the universe was spun by a giant spider, or that the Greek gods actually live on mount Olympus, and he will experience a similar feeling to the one we get when asked to accept Bibilical creation. The basic facts of underdetermination do mean that we have to use some psychological criteria to choose between competiting theories, but this doesnt imply that its either easy or possible to judge which theory is 'simpler' in practice, unless we import a whole load of other assumptions and commitments which are not purely scientific in the sense you described. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But noone cares about that. Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
Intelligent Design however is not, it is pure conjecture. In the recent Dover vs Kitzmiller trial in the US, for which the trial transcripts and much analysis can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...r_v_dover.html A particularly interesting bit of note here, is when one of the Expert witnesses for the defence, Prof. William Behe disagrees with the National Academies definition of science and redefines it to be much broader. this section starts about here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...tml#day11pm294 Behe admits that his definition includes the scientific definition of hypothesis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...tml#day11pm321 going as far as to admit that under his definition, even things like the Lumiferous Ether and Astrology are scientific theories: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...tml#day11pm327 So this is not about the priori assumptions that are made, but whether ID is in fact science or not, and by the definitions that Behe has given here, and remember he is one of the world experts on ID (being one of the inventors), it just isn't science. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed. John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away-- Half a crate of whisky every day. Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle. Hobbes was fond of his dram, And René Descartes was a drunken fart. 'I drink, therefore I am.' Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed, A lovely little thinker, But a bugger when he's pissed. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quiet mark.
(sorry in-joke :((((( ) |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
“Innovators and men of genius have almost always been regarded as fools at the beginning (and very often at the end) of their careers.” Dostoyevsky |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
I'm glad that someone is quoting dostoyevsky, we have had a dearth of russian literature here for too long!
I think enough people think that monty python are men of genius anyway though, unless you're talking about Hegel :confused: |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
Is that a joke or was the Holy Grail actually based on a Shakesphere play? |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
It's not something I would advise. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
Also just for the laugh “One can know a man from his laugh, and if you like a man's laugh before you know anything of him, you may confidently say that he is a good man.” - Fyodor Dostoyevsky |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
To me, something which can be proved or disproved is science. If something can be neither proven or disproven, then it is philosophy. God can never be proven or disproven. It/he/she is philosophy. [b]AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT[b] Last night I went to a basketball game. At half time there was a band. One of the selections which they played was one of the mainstays of Monty Python. All the people near me looked at each other and almost simultaneously said, "And now for something completely different." |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
[quote=dda]Dostoyevsky was a fool!
To me, something which can be proved or disproved is science. If something can be neither proven or disproven, then it is philosophy. God can never be proven or disproven. It/he/she is philosophy. ---------- Friend, I am not going to even try to explain, defend philosophy and refute your ideas. Those who spent all their life writing and thinking philosophy were not fools. Do yourself a favour and please read. If you are able to talk about many things so openly in forums and in other contexts, it is thanks to the people who did their best to reveal the underlying assumptions / logic of human life and behaviour. It is not only thanks to those who gave their life for freedom throughout human history. Freedom is locked behind so many doors, but philosophical knowledge is one of the keys that can set you free. The problem is not whether God exists or not. What matters is why human beings need to believe in a God, and the modus operandi of religion. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
I used to think hell would be an endless will and grace rerun but now I'm leaning towards being stuck for eternity in a room with charjerk.
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
"I never tried to please the rabble. What pleased them, I did not learn; and what I knew was far removed from their understanding" Epicurus
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
are you calling us rabble?
Forsooth sir! I am wounded! |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
[quote=Charjerk]"I never tried to please the rabble. What pleased them, I did not learn; and what I knew was far removed from their understanding" Epicurus[/QUOTe
No I can't call you rabble myself. I just did not want to make any changes in the original quotation. I am called wordy and other things I do not understand. It just best explains my situation I think. I am different, that is clear. If I misinterpret something it has to be explained and if it is right I will apologise for mistake. JonnyBGood, why do not you obey the laws of your nature and hibernate until summer. I like quotations is all. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Whoevers idea it was to mix some quotefinding mechanism with babelfish and "see what would happen" you can stop now.
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
You're not wordy, if you were wordy you would have described yourself as excessively verbose. You're a gibbering fool of a half-assed gimmick account. Far too many of your posts are either links to magazine articles or quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." (a quote about why quotations are shit, hurray!)
I didn't get your hibernation remark but at least you seem to have come up with that yourself thank ****ing christ. That said you include the words "the laws of your nature" in there so it's not that good. Maybe a C+. Thanks for trying though, much love in the bum. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
like emo kids. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
I agree with JBG (for once). Everything has a philosophy, and it is indeed a broadly used term.
Christians have philosophy, refrain from sinning. Doctors have philosophy, preserve life. Scientists have philosophy, to learn by the numbers and prove by them. Serial killers have philosophy, precise, repetitive killing. Pilots have a philosophy, don't crash. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Philosophy is merely a set of standards that people attempt to guide themselves by, and as such it should not attempt to define one particular aspect of life. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
The important thing is the essence / logic of a message or quotation does not matter who says it. I never shared the logic of stupid British / American empiricism. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. |
Re: Calling all philosophers...
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:26. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018