|
On August 01 2014 01:46 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 17:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
Philosophy should be a way of interpreting this knowledge into what it means for us. That's still science. Don't be dense. There's no scientific method for interpreting something for human meaning. If you think there could be i'd love to see a proposal for an experiment. Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
How we can or should use new technologies,
engineering i think Come one. he said "should." engineering can't answer "should" questions. You know this. Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
and speculating about what the future might hold (speculative science).
social science or even futurology one of those isn't a science, the other isn't even real. Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 20:33 son1dow wrote:
2Pacalypse, that quote koreasilver quoted was dumb because he had no clue what philosophy is, and it showed in it.
koreasilver knows a thing or two about philosophy I can assure you Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:39 deathly rat wrote:
Modern philosophy has to accept that discovering things about how the world works is done empirically. Once this concept is accepted then there is nothing to talk about. Everyone will accept that both Science and Philosophy have their place in the world.
your claim undermines itself. If there were nothing to talk about, there wouldn't be philosophy. So your claim is that "if philosophy would realize that it has no place in the world, then science and philosophy would have their place in the world." this is leaving aside your weird unstated assumption that modern philosophy is somehow naive to the idea of empirical investigation into reality, which is cute
-In the big picture, nothing has meaning to anything. It's kind of pointless express the insignificance of anything in relation to another. (I don't share the same sentiment. I believe existentialism is humanity in essence).
-So, for something to be considered a science, truly, it has to be accepted by a group of people? You're in auto-pilot mode now. I believe you're going on a sentiment again (one that depends on human kind's approval of things). I think it's amusing you opposed zulu_nation8 about anything having any true meaning towards humanity, and yet you rely on the approval of mankind.
I believe you're well read, but in the case of common sense, you lack it.
|
On July 27 2014 15:26 PoorPotato wrote:
Why do you fault people for disliking something?
I think you misunderstood me... I never said people should or need to like philosophy? I only ask that they respect it. For example, I do not particularly like or enjoy math, but I certainly respect it and those who study it. I'm not asking for anything but recognition as an equally useful human being which, I think, is a very fair request.
Alright, let's modify the question a little bit. Why do you fault people for disrespecting something? And why do you further insist, however politely and with however many reasoned words, that people who do disrespect philosophy should think differently? Anyway why are people all of the sudden subject to your command, however innocuous and beneficial it may seem to you? Why must people do as you say and respect philosophy?
Do you fault a dog for disrespecting your orders for it to stop barking? It's a fucking dog lol if it wants to bark it will. Some dogs can be trained and some dogs can't, but at the end of the day it won't respect what you respect because it is a different creature, and in the same way different people have different views on subjects and many don't find value in philosophy and don't respect it as a result.
Don't read too much into it; don't say that "oh nobody respects philosophy I don't want to be a philosopher anymore!" Just do what you can't help but do and you won't have any more such problems; if you love philosophy, pursue it.
|
On August 01 2014 10:00 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 01:46 bookwyrm wrote:
your claim undermines itself. If there were nothing to talk about, there wouldn't be philosophy. So your claim is that "if philosophy would realize that it has no place in the world, then science and philosophy would have their place in the world."
By "there would be nothing to talk about" I mean that nobody would argue the relative importance of philosophy. Everyone would agree etc...
I wouldn't want that. I don't think that would be a healthy sign for either philosophy or science. Much better when you argue about it.
On August 01 2014 10:12 1123581321345589144 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 01:46 bookwyrm wrote:On July 31 2014 17:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
Philosophy should be a way of interpreting this knowledge into what it means for us. That's still science. Don't be dense. There's no scientific method for interpreting something for human meaning. If you think there could be i'd love to see a proposal for an experiment. On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
How we can or should use new technologies,
engineering i think Come one. he said "should." engineering can't answer "should" questions. You know this. On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
and speculating about what the future might hold (speculative science).
social science or even futurology one of those isn't a science, the other isn't even real. On July 31 2014 20:33 son1dow wrote:
2Pacalypse, that quote koreasilver quoted was dumb because he had no clue what philosophy is, and it showed in it.
koreasilver knows a thing or two about philosophy I can assure you On July 31 2014 18:39 deathly rat wrote:
Modern philosophy has to accept that discovering things about how the world works is done empirically. Once this concept is accepted then there is nothing to talk about. Everyone will accept that both Science and Philosophy have their place in the world.
your claim undermines itself. If there were nothing to talk about, there wouldn't be philosophy. So your claim is that "if philosophy would realize that it has no place in the world, then science and philosophy would have their place in the world." this is leaving aside your weird unstated assumption that modern philosophy is somehow naive to the idea of empirical investigation into reality, which is cute -In the big picture, nothing has meaning to anything. It's kind of pointless express the insignificance of anything in relation to another. (I don't share the same sentiment. I believe existentialism is humanity in essence). -So, for something to be considered a science, truly, it has to be accepted by a group of people?
I'm not sure what specifically this is in reference to. From the way you phrased it, though, I would say obviously yes - "considered" already carries a social connotation... I don't think I claimed this though. Is it about social science? That discipline is poorly named, it's not a science - it's a field, it's just not a science because it's too statistical and the model is too impoverished vis a vis the object (on my view). Futurology is just a thing people call themselves, it's certainly not a "science."
You're in auto-pilot mode now. I believe you're going on a sentiment again (one that depends on human kind's approval of things). I think it's amusing you opposed zulu_nation8 about anything having any true meaning towards humanity, and yet you rely on the approval of mankind.
i'm not really sure what you're accusing me of, here.
I think about the most complicated thing that can be considered "science" is biology. And some of biology is not a science, but a history, which carries an entire other set of problems. Behavioral psychology is barely science. Nothing past that is in any way "science." on my view.
At any rate: chemistry - definitely science. biology - still pretty much science, but some aspects which are tricky. psychology - kinda science, but mostly not at all. Study of any systems in which individual minds are components - definitely not science. Economics could, in some aspects, be studied in ways which would be scientific, but mostly is not by economists, and is in large part not-science inherently because actually about history and society, which are not-science.
oh, and deciding about all of this can't be science, because there's no way to tell scientifically how "scientific" some particular mode of inquiry in some particular area is.
But framing this in terms of opposing "science" and "philosophy" is missing the point. Philosophy isn't defined by what it still clings on to from the advancing tide of Science. Philosophy is not a field, it's an activity that lurks at the poorly-defined edges of every field and exists in all the empty spaces where other fields aren't yet or can never be (but it's undecidable).
|
On August 01 2014 14:57 PoorPotato wrote:
<...>let me disrespect philosophy pls <...>
Hey, what about if you disrepsected any reasoning for ethical rights? What if you mocked any person with actual political views? What if you were ignorant of the philosophy of science and denied the scientific method's usefulness?
What if you used your pride in this ignorance to deny or confirm basically anything you want, so basically was a proud anti-intellectual?
(I mean, go ahead and dislike it yourself. But do it the same way kids hate math - they don't say they don't respect it, because they'll be laughed at by everyone.)
|
Croatia9543 Posts
On August 01 2014 14:58 bookwyrm wrote:
I think about the most complicated thing that can be considered "science" is biology. And some of biology is not a science, but a history, which carries an entire other set of problems. Behavioral psychology is barely science. Nothing past that is in any way "science." on my view.
At any rate: chemistry - definitely science. biology - still pretty much science, but some aspects which are tricky. psychology - kinda science, but mostly not at all. Study of any systems in which individual minds are components - definitely not science. Economics could, in some aspects, be studied in ways which would be scientific, but mostly is not by economists, and is in large part not-science inherently because actually about history and society, which are not-science.
You seem to have a very narrow definition of science. I don't really want to be the one to argue semantics and definitions, but once again, I'll invoke Lawrence Krauss and his definition of science: "Rational thinking applied to empirical evidence that makes predictions."
You somehow think that science can't ask a single philosophical question, when I would argue it's just a way of pursuing knowledge, much like philosophy; it just goes about it by actually going outside and looking at the world.
|
This si so simplistic. As if the greeks didn't look at the world...
Also guys, i have seen how astrophysics models are constructed. Scientific method is thrown out of the window, because it's simple not realistic.
The place of aesthetics in the history of science si also quite incredible, variationnal méthode for instance convince people before they se any application, just because minimazing stuff feel so amazing intellectually compared to diff équations. Hello economy btw.
Also you can be a brillant scientist , or philosopher, and an idiot for about everything else, thinking the contrary is refusing to look at the world.
Bookwyrm is right, social scientists denying any value to science are as annoying as scientism, I just have met way too much of the second category.
|
People should read about the life of Grothendieck imo, rationnality...
|
On August 01 2014 18:13 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 14:58 bookwyrm wrote:
I think about the most complicated thing that can be considered "science" is biology. And some of biology is not a science, but a history, which carries an entire other set of problems. Behavioral psychology is barely science. Nothing past that is in any way "science." on my view.
At any rate: chemistry - definitely science. biology - still pretty much science, but some aspects which are tricky. psychology - kinda science, but mostly not at all. Study of any systems in which individual minds are components - definitely not science. Economics could, in some aspects, be studied in ways which would be scientific, but mostly is not by economists, and is in large part not-science inherently because actually about history and society, which are not-science. You seem to have a very narrow definition of science. I don't really want to be the one to argue semantics and definitions, but once again, I'll invoke Lawrence Krauss and his definition of science: "Rational thinking applied to empirical evidence that makes predictions." You somehow think that science can't ask a single philosophical question, when I would argue it's just a way of pursuing knowledge, much like philosophy; it just goes about it by actually going outside and looking at the world.
This is the general impression i get from some of the apparently well read posters here. Like scientists are some robots that only look at numbers and graphs that can't form an independent thought about the significance of something or what it means in a greater context or what the implications are or etc...
Some people clearly don't have the understanding of this, but others seem intelligent and well read so i wander if it's still just general misunderstanding of science or the blind desire to force the full time philosopher in to relevance in to different fields.
|
Oh also, sapphire, about brain undersstanding, we're doing great progress, a team apparently managed to make a computer model of what is considered the standard model of one neuron, we're close to explaining counsciousness.
People in the fiels are also protesting against the big brain modelization programm, saying their knowledge is not mature enough for it ans it is just wasted funds.
But keep on listening to Sam Harris cause he has a PhD...
|
philosophy without science is religion and science without philosophy is ... Frankenstein.
- the context in which they co-exist is evolution. philosophy and science are the tic's and tock's of evolution. if any would disappear, we'd go extinct.
- the thing left to argue is their value and if that is left to individual valuation, after XXX conclusions/assumptions/outcomes/resolutions, you'll find patterns; evaluate those patterns, use them to create statistics and you'll get a glimpse at where your species (or a group of humans) is in relation to evolution.
that's all that matters. the heading.
|
Croatia9543 Posts
On August 01 2014 18:53 corumjhaelen wrote:
This si so simplistic. As if the greeks didn't look at the world...
By "looking", I didn't mean simply looking with your eyes. I meant empirically testing.
On August 01 2014 18:53 corumjhaelen wrote:
Also guys, i have seen how astrophysics models are constructed. Scientific method is thrown out of the window, because it's simple not realistic.
I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what scientific method is. And I'm pretty sure some astrophysicists would take great offense at you accusing them of not using the scientific method.
EDIT: Here's one paper on astrophysical model: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0505616v2.pdf Are you telling me they're not using the scientific method here? What are they using then, philosophical thinking? lol
On August 01 2014 18:53 corumjhaelen wrote:
Also you can be a brillant scientist , or philosopher, and an idiot for about everything else, thinking the contrary is refusing to look at the world.
I think you're over-generalizing here. Some examples (with evidence that supports your claim) would be helpful. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't make them an idiot.
On August 01 2014 19:07 corumjhaelen wrote:
Oh also, sapphire, about brain undersstanding, we're doing great progress, a team apparently managed to make a computer model of what is considered the standard model of one neuron, we're close to explaining counsciousness.
People in the fiels are also protesting against the big brain modelization programm, saying their knowledge is not mature enough for it ans it is just wasted funds.
But keep on listening to Sam Harris cause he has a PhD...
Listening to Sam Harris on certain topics is not in contradiction with your previous statements. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.
|
The poor astrophysicist who told me they had to work very différently from particle physicists because they don't have a few supernovae in their garden certainly was on the verge of tears when he told me that.
They're saying their as hoc model world ok and that people should look in that direction. Which is good, but I dont really see what the method is here, because a paper has little to do with what happens in the lab. I guess there's are formules, so that's the scientific method ?
Newton and Grothendieck were very sane human being whose lives should be emulated, i had to look very far to find those.
Also learn what irony is 2pad 
|
There are parts of sciences that have no direct empirical evidence whatsoever but are still parts of science. The standard example is string theory, but I like to point out the higgs-boson prior 2012. Yes, eventually there was empirical evidence, but even before pretty much every scientist believed that the higgs-boson exists. The reason were not empirical, but rather based on explanatory benefits of a theory with higgs-boson, compared to rival theories. A good description can be found in a part of this interview by 3am magazine:
+ Show Spoiler +3:AM: Is the Higgs-Boson discovery helpful in showing how your approach to scientific methodology works?
RD: The Higgs-Boson is an excellent example of the high degree of trust physicists can have in a hypothesis in the absence of empirical testing. Even though the particle was only discovered in 2012, physicists were quite sure that a Higgs-Boson of some kind existed since the standard model of particle physics got empirically well confirmed in the 1980s. Once again, the reasons for that confidence fit nicely within the pattern of non-empirical theory confirmation. Without the Higgs-hypothesis, the standard model could not explain the masses of elementary particles. No other theory than the Higgs hypothesis was in sight that could satisfactorily explain those masses. In addition, the standard model itself provided a very strong example of a theory that was first understood to be the only available solution to a technical problem (that was the problem of renormalizability in the 1960s and early 70s) and then turned out to be empirically viable in many respects. So the trust in the Higgs Boson before its discovery provides a very nice example of arguments of non-empirical theory confirmation at work. Moreover, the fact that the Higgs Boson was then actually discovered in 2012 demonstrates that those arguments indeed worked very well in the given case: they led us to trust a hypothesis that eventually turned out trustworthy. The next time a new theory in high energy physics will be assessed based on the method of non-empirical theory confirmation, the Higgs-Boson case will itself serve as an indicator that the method is reliable.
Note that the Higgs Boson case also exemplifies nicely that non-empirical theory confirmation is a critical method. Let us assume for a moment that the LHC experiments had demonstrated that no Higgs Boson existed. This would not just have refuted the Higgs hypothesis but would also have considerably weakened the trust in the reliability of non-empirical theory confirmation in high energy physics. Therefore, it would eventually also have weakened the trust in string theory. People would plausibly have asked: how can you still believe in your arguments for the viability of remote string theory after your strong belief in the existence of the much less speculative Higgs Boson has turned out unjustified?
|
I think this thread accurately sums up the pros and cons of philosophy  Builds good foundations for logical arguments / other stuff but is always on the edge of falling into self mastubatory word salad bullshit.
A bunch of politicians are (and have been for ages) discussing whether Assisted dying (euthanasia i guess) should become a thing in the UK. I wonder how much philosophy would be involved or how you would go about arguing this beyond common sense.
|
On August 01 2014 21:57 MoonfireSpam wrote:I think this thread accurately sums up the pros and cons of philosophy Builds good foundations for logical arguments / other stuff but is always on the edge of falling into self mastubatory word salad bullshit. A bunch of politicians are (and have been for ages) discussing whether Assisted dying (euthanasia i guess) should become a thing in the UK. I wonder how much philosophy would be involved or how you would go about arguing this beyond common sense.
Majority of people arguing about masturbatory word salad bullshit had no idea what philosophy is, so I don't know how you came to that conclusion unless you just pandered to both sides somehow.
There are philosophers as consultants on ethics boards and such, I remember one interview of a philosopher who is a consultant in philosophy bites. However, they are rather rare, politicians tend to prefer doing their thing only pandering to philosophical ideas that have permeated the socium already, that way they can do them in a shallow manner. Easier and more space for political maneuverings and pandering to lobbyists.
PS. Nice post Prog, btw. Interesting stuff.
|
Croatia9543 Posts
On August 01 2014 20:23 corumjhaelen wrote:The poor astrophysicist who told me they had to work very différently from particle physicists because they don't have a few supernovae in their garden certainly was on the verge of tears when he told me that. They're saying their as hoc model world ok and that people should look in that direction. Which is good, but I dont really see what the method is here, because a paper has little to do with what happens in the lab. I guess there's are formules, so that's the scientific method ? Newton and Grothendieck were very sane human being whose lives should be emulated, i had to look very far to find those. Also learn what irony is 2pad
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Nevertheless, I still urge you to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
|
Croatia9543 Posts
On August 01 2014 20:51 Prog wrote:There are parts of sciences that have no direct empirical evidence whatsoever but are still parts of science. The standard example is string theory, but I like to point out the higgs-boson prior 2012. Yes, eventually there was empirical evidence, but even before pretty much every scientist believed that the higgs-boson exists. The reason were not empirical, but rather based on explanatory benefits of a theory with higgs-boson, compared to rival theories. A good description can be found in a part of this interview by 3am magazine: + Show Spoiler +3:AM: Is the Higgs-Boson discovery helpful in showing how your approach to scientific methodology works?
RD: The Higgs-Boson is an excellent example of the high degree of trust physicists can have in a hypothesis in the absence of empirical testing. Even though the particle was only discovered in 2012, physicists were quite sure that a Higgs-Boson of some kind existed since the standard model of particle physics got empirically well confirmed in the 1980s. Once again, the reasons for that confidence fit nicely within the pattern of non-empirical theory confirmation. Without the Higgs-hypothesis, the standard model could not explain the masses of elementary particles. No other theory than the Higgs hypothesis was in sight that could satisfactorily explain those masses. In addition, the standard model itself provided a very strong example of a theory that was first understood to be the only available solution to a technical problem (that was the problem of renormalizability in the 1960s and early 70s) and then turned out to be empirically viable in many respects. So the trust in the Higgs Boson before its discovery provides a very nice example of arguments of non-empirical theory confirmation at work. Moreover, the fact that the Higgs Boson was then actually discovered in 2012 demonstrates that those arguments indeed worked very well in the given case: they led us to trust a hypothesis that eventually turned out trustworthy. The next time a new theory in high energy physics will be assessed based on the method of non-empirical theory confirmation, the Higgs-Boson case will itself serve as an indicator that the method is reliable.
Note that the Higgs Boson case also exemplifies nicely that non-empirical theory confirmation is a critical method. Let us assume for a moment that the LHC experiments had demonstrated that no Higgs Boson existed. This would not just have refuted the Higgs hypothesis but would also have considerably weakened the trust in the reliability of non-empirical theory confirmation in high energy physics. Therefore, it would eventually also have weakened the trust in string theory. People would plausibly have asked: how can you still believe in your arguments for the viability of remote string theory after your strong belief in the existence of the much less speculative Higgs Boson has turned out unjustified?
The good thing about science is that it doesn't care what you believe or what your biases are. This is one of the hallmarks of scientific method; it forces you to purge your beliefs and eliminate all biases. When scientists set out to determine whether the expansion of universe will start slowing down and eventually end up with a big crunch, or it will keep slowing down for eternity but never actually stop (which were the only two options at the time that made sense), what they actually discovered was that the expansion of universe is speeding up. They didn't stick with their their theories of big crunch and eternal slowing down, because they were empirically being proven wrong. If Higgs' theory was empirically being proven wrong, it would be thrown out like a yesterday's news paper.
The reason why a lot of scientists (not all, mind you) thought that there is a Higgs-Boson is because that theory was laying on shoulders of other theories which were empirically well substantiated. It's the same reason why scientists knew there were atoms well before they could verify it directly.
So your claim "There are parts of sciences that have no direct empirical evidence whatsoever" is a very bold claim indeed, because you're neglecting a lot of work that has been done to reach to that point. I'll grant you that not every theory can be proven empirically directly, eg. multiverse, but if there are 30 other theories that we can test and they all predict/support theory of multiverse, then we can quite confidently "believe" in the multiverse.
|
Interpreting evidence is an inherently biased process, the examples are notorious throughout the history of physics.
I'm gonna type up some passages from Feyerabend's Against Method.
|
Croatia9543 Posts
|
My claim was not bold at all. It is a fact that there is currently no direct empirical evidence for things like string theory. I never claimed that there is no empirical data that is related to theories that are not directly empirically justified. (That is no different for some philosophical theories though.) Try to read carefully, please.
And it is very obvious that just relatedness to things that are directly empirically justified is not enough to show that sciences actually justify only empirically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
