Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Philosophy and science
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 61 of 100 (576925)
08-26-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 12:29 PM


Confirmation of the success of my analogy
We identify a monitor as a monitor. Why? There are loads of different materials with different densities, but we ignore those to concentrate on the one difference in density - the difference between the 'solid' and the surroundings.
"We identify a monitor as a monitor. Why? There are loads of different high-concentrations of monitor-material, but we ignore those to concentrate on the one main difference in density - the difference between the highest concentration of monitor-material and the signficantly lower concentrations of monitor-material."
So the argument that we define things, like the table, by "the highest concentration of table-material" is not only begging the question and tautologous, it cannot be generalised.
And yet, as I just showed above, the analogy still works just fine... even on your new example. Probably because it can be so easily generalised.
"-material" is used as a simple description for "whatever it is we're detecting that we percieve to make up the object at whatever scale we're currently within".
At a normal scale "-material" is used to describe the glass, the plastic, the electronics...
At an atomic scale "-material" is used to describe all the various atoms that are used to make up the monitor
At the smallest scale we can currently identify "-material" is used to describe the fields of interaction involved
(...for a deeper explanation, please see Message 51 where I originally laid this all out)
If houses on a new estate are arranged in a cross shape, does the cross shape exist as a physical entity?
That depends on what you mean by "physical". If you mean what we're supposed to be talking about... objective existence... then yes, of course it physically exists, it's called a subdivision, possibly a Christian subdivision. If you mean "100% solid"... then what you mean by "physical entity" is a strawman that I have explained many, many times now to be irrelevant.
Or is it just a load of houses?
It's also a load of houses.
Just like a table made of many wood-chips is still a table... and it's also a load of wood-chips... and it's also a load of table-atoms...
It's easier if you pick one scale and stick with it, though, mixing them up and attempting to talk about them in an equal context only seems to add confusion.
PS - It does not say I am not familiar with the smaller scale - or at least any less familiar than most. I'm familiar with most of the physics we have on it, which is, I would argue, a greater familiarity than most. I have no experiential data directly - non of us have - which is why I am actually NOT arguing from personal incredulity.
Oh, I see. No experimental data directly is supposed to imply that we don't have any experimental data at all? Or that the experimental data we do have is somehow inferior? If we can't see things with the naked eye then there's no possible method for objective detection? If we don't know everything, we know nothing? If you didn't mean any of that, and our verifiable indirect methods of detections are equally valid as our verifiable direct methods... then what, really, are you trying to say? Are you sure this isn't an arguement from personal incredulity?
Do you have any positive-promotion at all for your claim that philosophy is requred to identify objective existence? Or will we continue to simply further explain my position while you suggest more examples and request minor clarifications? You still haven't given a single reason at all why philosophy needs to be considered when identifying objective existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 12:29 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 2:38 PM Stile has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 62 of 100 (576934)
08-26-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Stile
08-26-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Confirmation of the subjective nature of your analogy
You haven't addressed the previous objection so there is no need to restate anything.
The sole argument you put forward is tautologous. You cannot identify 'monitor material' unless you know what a monitor is.
You cannot offer a general solution because it relies on some arbitraty difference in density which itself requires you to prejudge what it is you are looking at. Without that prejudgement there is no way to separate the object from its environment. The judgement itself is subjective. If I put the table in water is it still a table? If so then why? The density of the background molecules is now different, so what rule do you propose that we adopt for deciding what difference in density is needed to distinguish an object from the background?
Is a balloon under water still a balloon? How do the rules now apply?
I don't think your argument hangs together. If it doesn't work as a general case then it shows nothing other than you need to then be able to identify specific cases from the generality - which would require an almost infinite list of rules. You say 'we identify' - in other words we apply a value judgement. So does the object exist? Yes if we say so. That seems to be the argument and it isn't very convincing.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Stile, posted 08-26-2010 1:36 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Stile, posted 08-26-2010 3:29 PM Bikerman has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 63 of 100 (576940)
08-26-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 2:38 PM


The backstroke always give me splinters
You cannot identify 'monitor material' unless you know what a monitor is.
We've talked about this before.
Again, what we call it is irrelevent. You can call it a monitor, you can call it a sophisticated looking-glass, you can call it God's Golden Glittery Eye.
It doesn't matter what we call it.
It has "material" (as previously defined).
This material is distinct from the material around it.
The natural, obvious and easy-to-generalise form of identification of the boundary of this material is by it's concentration/density when compared to it's surroundings.
You cannot offer a general solution because it relies on some arbitraty difference in density which itself requires you to prejudge what it is you are looking at.
We've talked about this before.
What is arbitrary about the difference in density between the air surrounding a table, and the table itself?
That seems like a pretty significant, obvious and objective difference to me. I can't remember ever hearing of someone who was unable to identify the difference in density between air and tables.
If I put the table in water is it still a table? If so then why?
Of course it is. Because we can detect and identify the obvious difference between "the high concetration of table-material" (the table) versus "the significantly lower concentration of table material" (the water).
Are you trying to imply that we cannot determine the difference in density between water and tables?
The sillyness of your position is showing again.
The density of the background molecules is now different, so what rule do you propose that we adopt for deciding what difference in density is needed to distinguish an object from the background?
No other rule is required, as shown above, we can still easily detect the boundary of "high concentration of table-material" vs. "significantly lower concentration of table-material". This is obvious unless you are trying to imply that we generally swim through tables?
Is a balloon under water still a balloon? How do the rules now apply?
Now it's balloon's that are the same density as water? Why wouldn't we be able to use the same method to detect the balloon?
I don't think your argument hangs together.
You keep saying this, but you seem unable to show why it should be taken seriously. In fact, you seem to be giving lots of reasons why I should start thinking that you've been pulling my leg this whole time. Seriously? You have a difficult time identifying the difference in density between a table and water??
If it doesn't work as a general case then it shows nothing other than you need to then be able to identify specific cases from the generality - which would require an almost infinite list of rules.
First I used the same method I've always used to show you how tables can be identified to objectively exist at our normal scale.
You then abandoned tables at our normal scale and moved onto tables at the microscopic scale.
I then used the same method I've always used to show you how tables can be identified to objectively exist at the microscopic scale.
You then abandoned tables altogether and moved onto monitors.
I then used the same method I've always used to show you how monitors can be identified to objectively exist.
You then abandoned monitors and moved onto tables-and-balloons-under-water.
I then used the same method I've always used to show you how tables-and-balloon-under water can be identified to objectively exist.
I'm starting to wonder how far these goalposts are going to go...
My method successfully worked for the example I provided.
Then, after you tried 3 times to produce an example that foils the method... we see that the exact same method works successfully for anything you can come up with.
Yet you continue to claim it doesn't work "in general?"
You say 'we identify' - in other words we apply a value judgement. So does the object exist? Yes if we say so. That seems to be the argument and it isn't very convincing.
I will fully admit that my arguement is not very convincing at all.... for anyone who is having a hard time determining the difference in density between tables and water,
However, for the rest of the general population of the world where such a difference is simple, and objectively verifiable... I think it'll work out just fine... and it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 2:38 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 3:55 PM Stile has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 64 of 100 (576943)
08-26-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Stile
08-26-2010 3:29 PM


Re: The backstroke always give me splinters
But it is trivial to show wrong, even if you ignore the fact that you seem to think just because something is obvious to you that other people must be stupid if they don't agree. Your method of defining an object - stick with table if it makes you happy, is entirely arbitrary. A table on a wooden floor is still a table, but why? According to your density theory what do we now look for on the dials ? A discontinuity? But there are similar patterns of difference within the table. We have no general rule for what changes in material or conditions make an object distinct from the background - apart from some appeal to 'detect and identify' which means making an arbitrary decision based on subjective as well as objective criteria.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Stile, posted 08-26-2010 3:29 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nwr, posted 08-26-2010 5:06 PM Bikerman has replied
 Message 69 by Stile, posted 08-27-2010 10:59 AM Bikerman has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 65 of 100 (576955)
08-26-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 3:55 PM


Re: The backstroke always give me splinters
Bikerman writes:
Your method of defining an object - stick with table if it makes you happy, is entirely arbitrary. A table on a wooden floor is still a table, but why?
Why do you see "arbitrary" as a problem here?
It seems to me that what makes something a table is a matter of social convention, and social convention is somewhat arbitrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 3:55 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 5:44 PM nwr has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 66 of 100 (576968)
08-26-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by nwr
08-26-2010 5:06 PM


Re: The backstroke always give me splinters
But that line was disallowed early on so I have stayed away from it. It seems to me that even the existence of a distinct entity is subjective. I have not been trying to use an argument normally deployed - the measurement problem in QM which is often mischaracterised as meaning conscious observation is necessary for anything to exist - because it is a flawed line of reasoning IMHO, but this seems more solid to me (pardon the pun).
The fact is, though, that arbitrary is equivalent to human imposed. So if an object is only definable with regard to a human imposed framework, such as what density change is requires, and for what extent must it extend before we define a boundary for the object, and what the exceptions are to that rule, and so on....then it has no objective existence as an object at all (even without considering the definitions problem). The fact that the atoms exist just means atoms exist...
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nwr, posted 08-26-2010 5:06 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nwr, posted 08-26-2010 6:50 PM Bikerman has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 67 of 100 (576982)
08-26-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 5:44 PM


Re: The backstroke always give me splinters
Bikerman writes:
The fact is, though, that arbitrary is equivalent to human imposed. So if an object is only definable with regard to a human imposed framework, such as what density change is requires, and for what extent must it extend before we define a boundary for the object, and what the exceptions are to that rule, and so on....then it has no objective existence as an object at all (even without considering the definitions problem).
I don't see how that follows. After all, the term "objective" refers to a human concept too, so "objective" can only mean what we want it to mean.
We had an earlier discussion related to this in thread Objective reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 5:44 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 7:04 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 68 of 100 (576985)
08-26-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by nwr
08-26-2010 6:50 PM


Re: The backstroke always give me splinters
I have seen the discussion but my interpretation/opinion is that you didn't win the debate and that objective reality as that which exists outside the human mind is a satisfactory description. The only case in which it could be wrong, IMHO, is if we imagine a super-matrix type scenario, in which case reality is STILL not a human concept - it would then be alien...
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nwr, posted 08-26-2010 6:50 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 69 of 100 (577156)
08-27-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 3:55 PM


Moving on to a new claim?
Bikerman writes:
But it is trivial to show wrong
Then why haven't you been able to do so yet?
A table on a wooden floor is still a table, but why? According to your density theory what do we now look for on the dials ? A discontinuity?
Of course. "Discontinuity" is just another way to note the difference in "the high concentration of table-material" vs. the surrounding "low concentration of table-material".
So, yes, we use the exact same method, again and again and again, everytime you move the goalpost, everytime you ask for minor clarification of the exact same concept.
But there are similar patterns of difference within the table.
You are playing with the term "similar" here.
Yes, the discontinuities within the table go "table-material", then "open space", then "table-material"...
Yes, the discontinuity between the table and the floor goes "table-material" (table-wood), then "open space", then "table-material" (floor-wood)...
So, yes, in that sense I agree that they are "similar".
However, it's the huge difference in significance that seperates these two different kinds of discontinuities that makes them extremely different in a very obvious and easily verified way (independent of the observer). Again, lets view the situation within each scale to make it clear.
At the normal (macroscopic) scale:
-We cannot easily detect discontinuities within the table to the point that it's very easy to imagine that they do not even exist
-We can easily detect the discontinuity between the table and the floor
-It can be verified independent of the observer for anyone to identify the significant difference between these discontinuities
-Therefore, "the table" can be identified objectively
At the very small (microscopic) scale:
-We can now easily detect discontinuities within the table
-We can now see that the discontinuity between the table and the floor is orders of magnitude larger than any of the discontinuities within the table
-It can be verified independent of the observer for anyone to identify the significant difference between these discontinuities
-Therefore, "the table" can be identified objectively
What you're bringing up only sounds convincing if we take thing out of context and do a little mix-and-match with our views at different scales. Like this:
-It can be said that at the macroscopic scale, the discontinuity between table and floor is "small"
-It can be said that at the microscopic scale, the discontinuities within the table itself are "small"
This is the only way to compare these two different discontinuities and somehow get confused that they could be difficult to differentiate.
However, as we look at each scale within it's own context (as I showed above), it is obvious to see that this confusion doesn't exist at all.
Again, I have asked you many, many times and you keep ignoring the question:
Where, specifically, am I injecting any amount of "philosophy" in order to objectively identify "the table"?
Remember, your claim was that philosophy was required in order to objectively identify anything.
I have shown you with my own example (a table) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a table at the atomic scale) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a monitor) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a table underwater) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a balloon underwater) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a wooden table on a wooden floor) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
Please, stop adding more examples. Even if you do, somehow, come up with an example where my method cannot work... I have still shown that your claim is false that philosophy is required in order to objectively identify anything.
If you still believe your claim is true, shouldn't we be able to work within the 6 examples we have (5 of which are yours), for you to show me the part that cannot be verified independent of the observer? Shouldn't you be able to show how all 6 examples must, necessarily, inject some philosophy somewhere before we can objectively identify their existence? Why do you keep trying to complicate the examples? If your claim is true, shouldn't you be able to show that it's true for the simplist of examples?
If you insist on adding another example, I'm afraid I'm going to have to assume that you no longer think that everything requires philosophy in order to be objectively identified and that you have now moved on to hoping that at least one thing, somewhere... requires philosophy. I'm not sure I agree with that either, but I am a lot less passionate about testing such a claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 3:55 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Bikerman, posted 08-27-2010 11:46 AM Stile has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 70 of 100 (577167)
08-27-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Stile
08-27-2010 10:59 AM


Re: Moving on to a new claim?
quote:
At the very small (microscopic) scale:
-We can now easily detect discontinuities within the table
-We can now see that the discontinuity between the table and the floor is orders of magnitude larger than any of the discontinuities within the table
-It can be verified independent of the observer for anyone to identify the significant difference between these discontinuities
-Therefore, "the table" can be identified objectively
Completely wrong. The table has 4 drawers down one site. Each drawer has a discontinuity much greater than the leg to ground. Furthermore the table is constructed, like most tables, from many pieces of wood which interface via nails, pins or pegs. Again the discontinuity here could easily we as much as the leg.
You keep repeating that you have shown this or that. You haven't - you simply keep banging the same broken drum. It is, as I said, trivially easy to show that your rules will rarely produce a table. You haven't actually got any workable rule other than discontinuity of unspecified size indicates boundary, except when it doesn't, except when it is a drawer, except then it is a join in the timbers, except when it is a gap between the table-top leafs...and so on. You could not and cannot give me a generalised set of rules for what a table is and each time you will fail because each time you are just adding more special cases.
If you think you can objectively recognise a table then prove it. Write down some scheme - pseudocode, flowchart, whatever...
You will not be able to because it was obvious from the start that the concept of table is highly subjective, and the attempt to replace subjectivity with algorithm/procedures nearly always means imposing severe restrictions on either the model, or the range of objects that are 'tables'.
And before you whine about special cases, I am talking about one of the most common forms of table, found in offices, staff rooms etc the world-over. If I wanted to pick a special case then that would be no challenge at all. What you have to date can't even deal with the normal cases....
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Stile, posted 08-27-2010 10:59 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 08-27-2010 12:09 PM Bikerman has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 71 of 100 (577180)
08-27-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Bikerman
08-27-2010 11:46 AM


I concede
The table has 4 drawers down one side.
And now we have a 7th example...
Look, I don't have time to keep correcting every minor nuance you can imagine. There are an infinite number of examples you can come up with to have me further explain to you how the exact same method works for them all.
Here, you said it yourself, you've added "drawers"... which are not "the table" we were talking about before. Now you're merely conflating the social convention of calling a basic table "a table" as well as calling a-table-that-also-has-drawers "a table". My method can easily be used to identify "a drawer" as it can be used to identify "a table" as it can be used to identify:
-nails
-screws
-glue
-pieces of wood
-pieces of plastic
-pieces of metal
-which we can then all use simple social convention to identify "a table with drawers" or anything else you dream up as well.
You have proved (by introducing yet another example) that you cannot deal with the simple examples and must needlessly add complexity in order to make an attempt at hiding the areas where you keep claiming philosophy is "required".
I will stop debating this topic with you now.
I hereby concede all my arguments and accept defeat, I cannot and will never be able to explain my method for the never-ending series of examples you keep demanding. Lucky for me, this is a message board and I am content with allowing others to read our exchange and make up their own minds.
Thanks for the chat,
If nothing else, our talk has currently solidified to me that "philosophy" is not required in any way shape or form in order to objectively identify the existence of any object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Bikerman, posted 08-27-2010 11:46 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 08-27-2010 12:14 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 73 by Bikerman, posted 08-27-2010 1:07 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 72 of 100 (577181)
08-27-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Stile
08-27-2010 12:09 PM


Re: I concede
There is though one infallible test, if your mom says "get you feet off the table" you can be absolutely sure that your feet are in the wrong place. The defense of "But mom, it has drawers!" or even "But mom, they are on the sofa!" simply fails.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 08-27-2010 12:09 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 73 of 100 (577193)
08-27-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Stile
08-27-2010 12:09 PM


Re: I concede
The point was to demonstrate that your method could never work, not to find odd examples - that would come later if needed (but it wouldn't be). I just have to visualise the range of structures that I would quickly recognise as a table, and that would quickly confound any previous algorithm. I actually doubt whether the problem can be solved in general terms, since table is so highly subjective that without making some link - however it is done - the algorithmic method is doomed. I cannot think of one single characteristic that all tables must share...
As Russell put it
quote:
Each table is different from the next, each chair in a set of chairs, no matter how alike they look, are all in some way dissimilar and individual. What connection is there between all these individual objects, which warrants them to be called by the same name? Is there a mysterious force behind all chairs and tables or within their structure, which makes them chairs or tables, an immaterial Form existing somewhere in Platonic heaven? Since the definition of a table or chair is relative, this cannot be the case. Since there is no absolute essence that all tables or chairs possess, their connection may be attributed to human perceptions and the way the human mind organises the world. Humanity is the only thing that binds tables to tables and chairs to chairs.
You seemed to get irritated by exceptions and counter cases and you insist that this density method works in each case, when it is clear that it does not. The example of the table on the wood floor is nowhere near addressed by 'edge seeking' strategies.
It is a very old problem in philosophy and most of the great names spent time contemplating desks and formulating an answer of their own.
The Problems of Philosophy - Bertrand Russell - Google Books
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 08-27-2010 12:09 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 100 (577486)
08-29-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 11:29 PM


Real philosophy with real world science
Lots of posts here discussing Platonism and ontology and other pursuits. Then when people see that this is not all that related to science or is 'navel gazing', they write off all (or most) of philosophy.
Epistemology
Should be obvious but isn't to many. Naively taking things at 'face value' was a method used to find conclusions. But that didn't work out because two people might come to two different conclusions at 'face value'. Logic is an method that philosophers came upon to answer some questions with definitive unambiguous answers. But the limits of logic had to be established. Some wondered if one could use logic to determine what 'Fire' is.
The answer is no. One needs to examine fire in more detail.
But just empiricism doesn't work: Our eyes can be fooled - our memory can be in error, our biases can blind us etc. And this applies to other people to!
Through lots of philosophical work finding compromises: Empiricism + Logic eventually leads to The Scientific Method (which is really a suite of methods).
Ethics
Scientists don't always require ethics (studying, for example, what height birds drop nuts doesn't generally have ethical considerations). But medical ethics, psychology and numerous other areas all require philosophical discussions on ethics.
Politics
Things that are true (or false) about the real world can have an impact on how we arrange society and relate to one another. You don't need to know the social ramifications of learning the first time neural connections are made in a human embryo, but it is certainly useful for a scientist to realize when they are working on certain (especially potentially controversial) ideas that have political ramifications.
Not only that but science itself might be used and abused to gain political points and scientists that are ignorant or uncaring of this fact may end up being pawns in someone elses media game.
And finally - some scientists study political things more directly. What are the effects of prison sentences on society? Is the death penalty effective? Is a jury of twelve random people a reliable method for determining facts? And philosophy/political philosophy come into the frame here.
Neuroscience
A lot of the problem with trying to develop a theory of human consciousness - is understanding what such a theory should look like. There are many philosophers involved in this area at this time - feeding backwards and forwards with the scientists studying it (or sometimes they are also the scientists studying it).

I've kept it short and simple - but anyone that thinks philosophy is all "Is this table really a table? When is a table a table?" stuff isn't the kind of philosophy that many actual philosophers really care about these days. It's kind of limited to first year philosophy students and ancient Greeks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 11:29 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Bikerman, posted 08-29-2010 10:42 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 11:02 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 77 by Stile, posted 08-30-2010 10:02 AM Modulous has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 75 of 100 (577510)
08-29-2010 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
08-29-2010 7:22 AM


Re: Real philosophy with real world science
I could not agree more.
We could also expand a couple of those:
Neuroscience expands to cover AI systems of all types. If we want to build intelligent machines then it would be handy to start by understanding intelligence.
Ethics expands to cover a very basic question - are all subjects valid areas of study for scientists? Are there any taboos and if so what makes them so? If not then what responsibility has the scientist for the exploitation of his work? Were Oppenheimer & Feynmann right to feel guilt after the Manhattan project, or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 08-29-2010 7:22 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024