| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On September 09 2013 06:26 sam!zdat wrote: all of philosophy is derived from logic?? Who are you, bertrand russell? not even all of what anglos call 'philosophy' is derived from logic, let alone all of philosophy. How ludicrous when did russell say that? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On September 09 2013 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: he didn't it's a caricature. Not even bertrand russell is that stupid So you were saying you were getting a PhD? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On September 05 2013 09:24 sam!zdat wrote: that's because political science is a bullshit field. You should know this because politics is obviously not science. Political science is where politics ends and we all become slaves of the election machine. I think I have to take an exam or smth two and a half years in for the MA part. But I'm not sure everything about this is confusing, I'm just going to show up and think about literature and I'm sure it will work out. wtf are you on lol | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On September 09 2013 06:26 sam!zdat wrote: all of philosophy is derived from logic?? Who are you, bertrand russell? not even all of what anglos call 'philosophy' is derived from logic, let alone all of philosophy. How ludicrous Simply because the logic is not formalized and explicitly defined doesn't mean it isn't derived from logic. Because philosophy is applied logic, there is going to be a layer of abstraction obviously. Like when physicists compute derivatives, they usually don't use the definition of a derivative. There are layers of abstraction (power rule, product rule, etc.) that seem to totally differentiate the two (definition of derivative and whatever other method you use to compute it), but one is still derived from the other. If not all of philosophy is derived from logic, then give me an example of a philosophical idea that is not derived from logic. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On September 09 2013 07:16 sam!zdat wrote: 'good' "Good" is not philosophy. It's term that is defined and used in philosophy. If you were to make a philosophy involving good e.g. "One should live the Good life," it becomes a value argument, which is derived from logic. EDIT: I realize that this is partially my own fault because of my sloppily worded request, as I asked for an example of a "philosophical idea," under which 'good' qualifies. But 'good' isn't philosophy until it's used for a larger argument. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 09 2013 06:55 sam!zdat wrote: yes that's the notion anyway. I'm useless for anything else of course Dear comrade your painful sacrifice for the sake of justice will never be forgotten, with your PhD you will start a new age for humanity. The enslaved masses will be forevever grateful. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
mozoku I'm just going to leave you to your little fantasies | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On September 09 2013 07:36 sam!zdat wrote: mozoku I'm just going to leave you to your little fantasies If I was so obviously wrong, it wouldn't take much more time to explain why I was wrong then it would to write a condescending write-off of my claim. Not to mention, I'm legitimately interested in hearing the other side since I'm not a philosopher and haven't studied it past an elementary undergraduate level. But go ahead and assert you're right and that you're simply too good to respond to a peasant like me. Nevermind that its a very.. well.. ironic position to take for someone championing the humanities' value against those "arrogant" scientists who claim that the humanities are worthless. | ||
|
Chytilova
United States790 Posts
First off I'm sure there are varying experiences depending on the university and the field one wishes to enter. For my brother once a week would be a crazy small amount of time and multiple people would have talks with him very soon. If it was during his first 2 years he would be kicked out of the program probably. After 2 years he was required to pick a lab to work with (after being required to work with 3 different labs) plus write a formal proposal of his ultimate thesis before being officially locked into the program. If they felt his proposal wasn't worthy enough he would have been dismissed from the program. A program like this is work intensive and can be stressful at times. You really need to love the research. He can go into work and take off whenever he wants, but they really encourage not taking off frequently and spending 40 hours a week in the lab. My brother was smart and loves biology so he was involved in lab research all through undergrad plus searched out a lab doing research he liked before even deciding which PhD program to go into. He meet with the head of the lab he wanted before even deciding on attending that university and things have gone great for him. Also he isn't really a workaholic. Besides when he was writing his very important proposal for like a 2 month period, he works 40 hours a week and that's it. I've crashed at his place and stayed up until 3am playing Starcraft or other video games several times during workdays. And yes those pictures do a great job at describing what he is currently doing. Also the pay isn't that great so that's extra incentive why you really need to love it. Specifically though my brother was lucky and moved in with a couple of friends from college that got great paying jobs and than he got married so he hasn't had to live on just his salary. On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote: ...the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. I guess I don't know what according to you is little technicality, but from the several biology PhD candidates I've met it's pretty damn technical. Of course part of the job is working as a lab tech, but you should choose a lab you like and they also do their own research. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On September 09 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote: hey mozoku I'm sorry, you're right, I'm being a jerk. It's just that I've written reams and reams about this topic on this site and I think everyone's probably sick of hearing about it. You could look through my profile and dig up some old threads where I blather on about this until everyone wants to punch me in the testicles, if you like. Long story short, the vast majority of philosophy frankly barely uses formal logic, let alone is grounded in it. The particular anglo tradition that you took in college places a higher value on formal logic than most, but even most of that is more window dressing to make it seem more 'logical' and 'scientific' than it really is, because we live in a society where everyone is obsessed with that sort of thing I wish people were more obsessed with logic and science. It seems all they can talk about is their personality cults and superstitions. Oh and their shrink of course. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
Current research indicates that jurors are generally very trusting of forensic "experts" and forensic evidence, even if they don't understand it, whereas studies looking at the legitimacy and reliability/validity of forensic evidence propose that forensic evidence is fraught with bias at many different levels of an investigation. However, whilst there is a lot of new research coming up about how to reduce forensic bias in forensic labs and in the field, the same hasn't really been done for the courtroom, except for some proposed changes to forensic reports etc. But yeah. So only just started my first study after they misplaced my ethics application, meaning the process took longer than it should have. Current workload is not high. And even if I will get to points where I have to do a lot of work in a short time, I doubt it will be any more stressful or tiring than anything I did in honours (in honours I looked at the impact of training schedules on the sleep/wake behaviours of Australian Olympic swimmers at the last Olympics, I was very lucky). I also plan to apply for Clinical Masters in 2014, so as to be doing both the PhD and Masters at the same time (they have an actual program for that here), so I would finish with just about everything I could want, and do whatever I want. First and foremost would want to be a clinical psychologist, so yeah. Bit of ACT, CBT and the like. Two of my friends are currently also doing PhDs in Biochem, and they practically live at their labs. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On September 09 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote: hey mozoku I'm sorry, you're right, I'm being a jerk. It's just that I've written reams and reams about this topic on this site and I think everyone's probably sick of hearing about it. You could look through my profile and dig up some old threads where I blather on about this until everyone wants to punch me in the testicles, if you like. Long story short, the vast majority of philosophy frankly barely uses formal logic, let alone is grounded in it. The particular anglo tradition that you took in college places a higher value on formal logic than most, but even most of that is more window dressing to make it seem more 'logical' and 'scientific' than it really is, because we live in a society where everyone is obsessed with that sort of thing Would you say that a lot of philosophical ideas are not actually derived from logic, but really just based on hunches, with the logic coming after to try to prove the idea? Or did you really just mean that not all philosophy is derived from formal logic? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
you can mostly use logic to test the consistency of a collection of statements, or determine what implications follow from a set of knowns. But most of the 'verbs' that we use to do very basic types of reasoning have no rigorous logical definition. The world is just too complicated, and the kinds of things philosophers want to talk about too diverse, to do everything with logic. Logic is just one tool in your toolbox and, frankly, most problems that can be solved just with logic are by virtue of that fact trivially easy. imo, the high status accorded to logic in anglo philosophy has mostly just served to impoverish anglo philosophy and reduce the scope of things that are considered 'philosophy' to those things that are easier to treat with logic. Here it is like the man who lost his keys in a parking lot, and searches for them only under the streetlight, because that's where he can see. As tmbg would say, 'im having a wonderful time but i'd rather be whistling in the dark.' edit: which is not to say I disapprove of analytic philosophy, because I don't, for a while that's what I thought I wanted to do. And I don't believe there is any such thing as a pointless intellectual endeavor. But I do resent anglo philosophers who think that they have a monopoly on truth and that theirs is the only philosophy because it says 'philosophy' on their transcript and 'english' on mine. | ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
Cure vs herO
ByuN vs Rogue
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
