| Blogs > TheGloob |
|
Oboeman
Canada3980 Posts
You don't have to come up with new big ideas, but I think it's a good idea to have a sense of what some of the great minds of the past had come up with. the education of each generation should build on what has come before, and that includes not only technical knowledge but also more abstractly understood concepts. i think it is vastly under-rated. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On July 27 2014 14:15 TheGloob wrote: I'm curious as to what disciplines you think we should take seriously? Not a question I can or care to answer. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 28 2014 06:45 Sapphire.lux wrote: Your understanding of science seems to be rather superficial. You make the mistake, a common one BTW, to equate science with engineering. While there is no engineering without science, they are not one and the same. Modern science does what philosophy professes to do: deals with reality, the nature of things, energy, time, space, human behavior, human thoughts (including love, hate, lust, etc), etc. In the past, we didn't have "science man", we had "natural philosopher". It's important not to mix the modern philosophers with the past ones. Old philosophy is by and large the science of today. So with maybe one or two exceptions (setting on moral values and laws for a fair modern society), i to agree that philosophy is a relic of the past and doesn't serve humanity anymore. The methods, like introspection, are just outdated and have reached their limit. You have to look outward for knowledge. I don't think you really understand science either. Meet Paul Feyerabend. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 28 2014 14:35 IgnE wrote: I don't think you really understand science either. Meet Paul Feyerabend. I'm afraid you're going to have to explain yourself a bit more then giving a wikipedia link of a philosopher that you might share opinions with. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 28 2014 17:06 IgnE wrote: Do you even do science? If you don't want to talk about something then please don't post. Giving links instead of arguments (suported by links), now answering to questions with questions. Good day! | ||
|
TheGloob
97 Posts
Well if you can't name anything we should take seriously it's unfair say what we shouldn't take seriously. I think we should take philosophy seriously among other things (though if you want to make some argument that we should take nothing or everything seriously that is fair). It's silly to say "we shouldn't take philosophy seriously, but I'm not sure what disciplines we should take seriously" because if you're in the position to say one is foolish, you are in the position to another is not. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 28 2014 17:20 Sapphire.lux wrote: If you don't want to talk about something then please don't post. Giving links instead of arguments (suported by links), now answering to questions with questions. Good day! If you don't do science and you don't do philosophy why should we care about your opinions on them? | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 03:23 IgnE wrote: If you don't do science and you don't do philosophy why should we care about your opinions on them? You're a friendly champ aren't you? I'm an engineer and i'm scientifically literate, that's why i commented on the OP that he should learn to differentiate between the two before making sweeping statements on what science does and does not. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
There is absolutly nothing wrong with the socratic method or questioning the underlying framework of a pursuit or situation. Just recognize your role as secondary to the pursuit and situation as you depend on it and it does not depend on you unless you can some how convince it to. Also please become aware of how limited the abillity for a human to generate rational thoughts is and how small a part of the world it is relative to how significant it sees itself. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On July 28 2014 14:35 IgnE wrote: I don't think you really understand science either. Meet Paul Feyerabend. The distinction between science and engineering is largely correct, many of the modern inventions we attribute to science are created by amateur scientists, or engineers whose expertise lie in technology rather than science as philosophy. This gap has increasingly widened as science has become more abstract and theoretical, and technology has separated itself from pure science as seen in universities and corporate divisions. It's a common mistake to attribute to science the various inventions that have raised our quality of living. The effect of such a mistake is usually to attach some epistemological or moral justification to science based on its pragmatism. But theoretical science is in fact as unpragmatic as aesthetic philosophy, and the technology itself of, for example, designing and inventing things like hybrid cars has no moral alignment whatsoever. A scientist philosopher like Feyerabend, who along with Lakatos were the pre-eminent examples of scientific philosophers in the 20th century, did not directly contribute to our quality of living like engineers could; but still their insights into the methodology of science were as important and practical as any advancements in moral or legal philosophy. America is perhaps more concerned with instrumental value than other societies, but we are the country that gave birth to William James, the most practical philosopher of all. When you're coming out of college with 100k debt, Socratic intrinsic value is usually the last thing on your mind. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
The second point is more interesting and in that respect there certainly is antipathy to anything smacking of philosophy. Conservatives view philosophers as the destroyers of morals and social order (not a totally unjustified opinion). Across the Modern spectrum there is a whole host of reactions, but it seems apparent that a world view that seeks to immanentize all of human life will eventually turn against things that look beyond the low horizons it has set. Both Liberals and Leftists in the U.S. have taken on an economic vocabulary that makes it very difficult to get at essential discussions. Another current is, of course, the adherents of Scientism that advance their misbegotten positivism. Analytic philosophy, which should be a useful branch, seems to serve the dual suicidal purpose of casting philosophy as a client discipline to natural science and making philosophy itself so obscure and unappealing to anyone but a pedant. To answer Prog, I don't think they know what science is themselves. If we're going to understand the attitudes of someone like Puppykiller, though, we're going to have to look at something far beyond mere individual rational though. It's a whole environment that has made their worldview possible (a process that I've only just now started to understand myself). | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 29 2014 03:36 Sapphire.lux wrote: You're a friendly champ aren't you? I'm an engineer and i'm scientifically literate, that's why i commented on the OP that he should learn to differentiate between the two before making sweeping statements on what science does and does not. You are the one making sweeping statements about science and philosophy, saying that science has superseded philosophy, rendering it obsolete. Philosophy is hardly a relic of the past, something you would at least have some inkling of if you had bothered to look into the philosophy of science at all. Once again, you don't do science, and you don't do philosophy, so I don't see why OP or anyone else should care about your opinion. Bravo, lots of people of people aren't scientifically literate, but lots of people are, and a distressingly large number of those people seem to think because they have possession of this secret knowledge that it renders other modes of knowledge a moot point at best, and pernicious superstition at worst. And unfortunately just being a "scientifically literate" technocrat doesn't mean that you do science, or that you've thought about what science is. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On July 27 2014 13:37 puppykiller wrote: Philosophy often seems to me an excessive amount of narritive attempting to accompany an extremely complicated and difficult to understand desicion making process (probably the fault of my neuroscientist roomates). I don't see anything wrong with philosophy and the study of it but it seems unhelpful to take it seriously. Bare in mind some of the ridiculous seeming cultural and scientific beliefs we have come to generate in the past due to pure mental exersizes and then try to assume that this relic of a way to search for truths is not a fragile process. That's pretty much what I was going to say. I think philosophy isn't particularly important, because it really doesn't lead to anything except branches in ideology. This wouldn't be a problem if there were an ideology that promoted purely treating people with love and kindness, and trying to be a better person. However, the more idealized an individual sees his or her philosophical viewpoint(s), the more these ideas will clash with other people's ideas, giving way to conflict. You can argue against this assertion I'm making until you're blue in the face, but I will never budge an inch; philosophy is not useful. + Show Spoiler + If you started typing furiously "It's ironic that you..." or "Wow, you are such a hypocrite..." then get up from your computer, eat like ten dicks, then come back and realize it's just a joke. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 29 2014 06:11 zulu_nation8 wrote: The distinction between science and engineering is largely correct, many of the modern inventions we attribute to science are created by amateur scientists, or engineers whose expertise lie in technology rather than science as philosophy. This gap has increasingly widened as science has become more abstract and theoretical, and technology has separated itself from pure science as seen in universities and corporate divisions. It's a common mistake to attribute to science the various inventions that have raised our quality of living. The effect of such a mistake is usually to attach some epistemological or moral justification to science based on its pragmatism. But theoretical science is in fact as unpragmatic as aesthetic philosophy, and the technology itself of, for example, designing and inventing things like hybrid cars has no moral alignment whatsoever. A scientist philosopher like Feyerabend, who along with Lakatos were the pre-eminent examples of scientific philosophers in the 20th century, did not directly contribute to our quality of living like engineers could; but still their insights into the methodology of science were as important and practical as any advancements in moral or legal philosophy. America is perhaps more concerned with instrumental value than other societies, but we are the country that gave birth to William James, the most practical philosopher of all. When you're coming out of college with 100k debt, Socratic intrinsic value is usually the last thing on your mind. There's some irony here, in that I think you misinterpret the motivation behind the distinction Sapphire is making. At least you don't make it plain that you are agreeing with the distinction for different reasons. Sapphire is saying, "don't confuse science for engineering, because even though engineering is merely instrumental, science (and the scientific method) has completely supplanted philosophy because it allows us to ascertain the true nature of reality," whereas you seem to be saying, "don't confuse science for engineering, because even though engineering is practical, and in many ways rather aphilosophical, science is actually intimately intertwined with philosophies of epistemology, metaphysics, and value." | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
@Ninazerg, you are a queer sort. The ultimate gambit to opinions such as Puppykiller's is that there is not an option to have "philosophy" or not have a philosophy: You will have a philosophy and your culture will have a philosophy. Your options are to investigate and understand these forces or allow them to shape you blindly. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On July 29 2014 11:59 Jerubaal wrote: Ninazerg, you are a queer  | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 29 2014 11:59 Jerubaal wrote: Perhaps what once was once called science is as you say it is, IgnE, but no mainstream current bears any resemblance to this conception. Empiricism and Positivism are the orders of the day. Either you are acknowledging the deficiency of the natural science that calls itself lord of all knowledge or you think they are the same thing. If it is the latter, I am most distressed because that is utterly unlike the promise Bacon made to deliver improvements without insinuating metaphysical questions. @Ninazerg, you are a queer sort. The ultimate gambit to opinions such as Puppykiller's is that there is not an option to have "philosophy" or not have a philosophy: You will have a philosophy and your culture will have a philosophy. Your options are to investigate and understand these forces or allow them to shape you blindly. What do I say it is? What conception are you talking about? | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On July 29 2014 09:40 IgnE wrote: There's some irony here, in that I think you misinterpret the motivation behind the distinction Sapphire is making. At least you don't make it plain that you are agreeing with the distinction for different reasons. Sapphire is saying, "don't confuse science for engineering, because even though engineering is merely instrumental, science (and the scientific method) has completely supplanted philosophy because it allows us to ascertain the true nature of reality," whereas you seem to be saying, "don't confuse science for engineering, because even though engineering is practical, and in many ways rather aphilosophical, science is actually intimately intertwined with philosophies of epistemology, metaphysics, and value." He's right that today's natural and social sciences address questions that were all part of philosophy's domain in the past. There are very few topics philosophy can still call its own. Of course introspection is not the "method" of philosophy, and philosophy relies on empiricism often as much as scientists. But for example, in the case of Feyerabend, he is first and foremost a scientist with an expert understanding of physics. Against Method uses examples from quantum physics that would be incomprehensible to those who do not have the same technical knowledge. I don't think sapphire is trying to argue the scientific method itself has replaced philosophical inquiry, but I agree that philosophy is more empirical than ever. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On July 29 2014 09:30 IgnE wrote: You are the one making sweeping statements about science and philosophy, saying that science has superseded philosophy, rendering it obsolete. Philosophy is hardly a relic of the past, something you would at least have some inkling of if you had bothered to look into the philosophy of science at all. Philosophy of science, like any and all other types of philosophies, are of no concern to science. You don't need, and you probably should stay away actually from "philosophy of science" if you intend to do good science. Once again, you don't do science, and you don't do philosophy, so I don't see why OP or anyone else should care about your opinion. Since you hold that against me, i take it you are a philosopher? Bravo, lots of people of people aren't scientifically literate, but lots of people are, and a distressingly large number of those people seem to think because they have possession of this secret knowledge that it renders other modes of knowledge a moot point at best, and pernicious superstition at worst. "secret knowledge"? What? If the people who can comprehend the scientific method tend to have similar opinions, then doesn't that tell you something? If nothing else, that you should at least get a decent grounding in what science is and what it is not. Now what other methods are you talking about and more importantly what knowledge did they give? When you say "pernicious superstition" i really hope you are not talking about religion. I have a relatively low opinion on modern philosophy (with exceptions) but there is no reason to associate it with make beliefs and myth. And unfortunately just being a "scientifically literate" technocrat doesn't mean that you do science, or that you've thought about what science is. I've said i don't do science but unlike some i tend to understand what it is, why it is the way it is and why it works. I didn't just think about it, i learned about it. I'd be interested to see a small discussion on what exactly are the benefits to humanity brought on by modern philosophy (other then the ability to be making simple points in an over complicated fashion). That i think would be a better start to a conversation about whether it has any value or not. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
