Philosophy 101

I quite agree with the wolf on this one.My own problem with philosophy is it tends to get too nonsensical without much base on reality. Nothing demonstrates this better than modernism and post-modernism. What a load of crap.We have learned from the past that if you base your frame of thought not on physical evidence than you are most likely to be wrong. Look at how Aristotle described the motion of projectile. According to him, if you throw an object it will go in a straight line parallel to the ground until it loses it's libido or whatever and then fall straight down to the ground towards its natural state. A simple experiment of throwing something would have proven this wrong, but no since philosophers are all knowing and don't need no confirmation with reality.I'm constantly amazed at how people continue to put any weight on philosophy at all. It has little to do with reality.

You kidding? This post-modernism drivel has been around for almost a century now and it's still going strong among academic philosophy. Given that there are now a growing number of academics who openly voice their opinion that philosophy is useless today.Added by edit.Here is a blog explaining quite clearly why post-modernism is equivalent to nonsense.Rationally Speaking: Provably Nonsense: Part II particularly like the reference to the Alan Sokal Hoax, an example I've been using for years to demonstrate my point that post-modernist philosophy is indistinquishable from complete nonsense.Here is another good read. This is by Richard Dawkins, one of the most articulate person alive, me thinks.Page not found | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and ScienceEdited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Um, no, it's a common sense + scientific conclusion.Again, with the case of Aristotle, all they had to do was throw a rock or something and see what happens. But no, they had this notion of mind over matter thing.Take a look at this post modern crap. Believe it or not, I tried to minor in philosophy back in college. Was always interested in it. I actually got voted in as president of the debate club. After years of debating and studying postmodern philosophy, I came to the conclusion that it's utter crap. The only reason people can't prove definitely that it's utter crap because most of the writings are done in obscure language. Take a look at the following quote.

quote:

---

In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor unstable, but rather ‘metastable,’ endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between series are distributed ... In the second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast.

---

It's utter nonsense. I've read extensively on Kant, Marx, etc. and I can tell you that it doesn't get better. At all.I know, I know, I'm not sophisticated enough to understand this crap. What about the Sokal hoax? His paper was loaded with nonsense and they honestly couldn't tell the difference between that and a real postmodern paper.Postmodernists seem to have a knack for committing the fallacy of the middle ground. I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to accept that a person can be worth 3/5 of a person through some bullshit compromise.Added by edit.Richard Dawkins makes a good point about postmodernists. They bear a striking resemblance of charlatans and creationists. Why in the world would anyone want to write their thoughts in obscure language other than to deceive? I along with most others have done this before where we purposely put our words in obscure arrangement in order to decieve. What's new about postmodernism is it takes it to a whole new level. They managed to build an entire academic field around what charlatans have been doing for thousands of years.Don't believe me? Even postmodern philosophers admit that they have a hard time understanding each other. We're not the only ones having trouble with what they write. They themselves can't even understand each other. What does that tell you about their field? Look, if you can't phrase your thoughts in a coherent manner that at least people in your own damn field could understand, then it is indifferentiable from utter crap.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm not saying throw away all philosophy. At the same time, I think it is over-inflated. People are placing too much importance on it. That's why I didn't just say common sense. I said common sense and scientific evidence.Again, let me point out to you that philosophers believed for a very long time that projectiles travel in a rectangular path. A simple experiment of tossing a rock would have shown that projectiles travel in a parabolic path.Why did it take philosophers so long to correct their mistake? Because philosophy itself is ill-equipped to do so. They base all their thought process on things that exist in their minds. They don't care much for reality.Every researcher will tell you that book-smart science ain't the only thing you need in scientific research. You also need a lot of common sense. Common sense alone is terrible at investigating real world phenomena. Book-smart science alone is terrible at investigating real world phenomena. You need both to have an accurate assessment of reality. No, philosophers went further than that. They described the motion of projectiles as travelling in a rectangular path. Precisely. And that's my point. Philosophy is ill-equipped to deal with reality. This has led to nonsense such as postmodernism. No need for confirmation. As long as they can crank out utter crap. Again, even postmodernists have trouble understanding each other, and they admit this. It's not a philosophical stance. It's a fact of life.Look, you can try to obscure the subject all you want. You can fill this thread up with all the nonsense such as right is wrong, wrong is right, there is no free will, and other nonsense of philosophy. The fact remains that science coupled with common sense have done a hell of a lot more than philosophy has been able to achieve. Despite popular belief, philosophy never brought us any closer to truths about reality. Real, honest to god scientists and empiricists with their lives' works brought us closer to the truths of reality.Philosophers can try to claim credit all they want. They're wrong.

First of all, you people... I went to the lab for the day and you people added 2 whole new pages. If I had stayed overnight there, you'd probably added 5 more pages just to annoy me. Here is something to consider. Your statement would make a lot of sense if we're talking about things in a vacuum. But you see, we're not in a vacuum. We got centuries of experience in these matters.Science has an excellent track record. It has helped mankind produce more food with the same resources than ever before. We have discovered untold wonders through scientific endeavor. The invention of anti-biotics alone saved millions of lives. Science has even put a man on the moon for christsake.In the lab we've been working on a new material that could one day replace steel as the main reinforcement for concrete structures. It is twice as strong as steel, only weighs 1/4 that of steel, doesn't rust, doesn't corrode, fire resistant, lasts 5 times longer than steel, and is much much cheaper to make. We didn't just sit there and crank out nonsensical essays to come up with these stuff. We're doing honest to goodness hands on research and development.Now, let's look at the alternatives.Creationist research - no progress. Philosophy - no progress... other than more nonsensical essays. Homeopathic medicine - no progress. UFO research - no progress. Big foot research - no progress.So, you honestly want to put these other things on the same rank as science? Are you seriously this delusional?Again, your statement only makes sense if none of these things have any track record for us to look at. But let's step out of your philosophical mumble jumble and look at reality for once.Added by edit.Last year we tested out a reinforced concrete beam, somebody set the pressure too high and the thing literally exploded. Somebody outside heard the explosion and called 911. It took the rest of the day to clean up the lab.The point is that's real scientific research, not fabricating nonsensical papers that have nothing to do with reality.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This is why I used the track records as a way to prove my point that you can't equate all these other things with science. It's like trying to put faith healing on the same level as modern medicine even though faith healing has absolutely zero recorded instance of it actually working.If sleve wants to put faith healing on the same level as modern medicine, ask him if the next time he got involve in a car crash or if he becomes violently ill will he want to go to a hospital or will he want to be taken to a church where they will try to pray for his recovery.

Straggler, since philosophers have defined philosophy as the basis of all human thought, of course you'd think that those questions are philosophical questions. What I'm saying in regard to this is that you don't need all the philosophical mumble jumble to answer these questions.The answer to all your questions is reality. Science is the only field that deals with reality as we know it. If tomorrow the laws of physics changes than science will change with them.Can you name anything else at all, any other framework of human endeavor that deals 100% with reality? Let see, religion... nope. UFO research... nope. Creationism... nope.So, why is science so much more successful than everything else mankind has tried? Because science deals 100% with reality. And what a coincidence, we happen to be living in reality, not some fairy tale.

Read my post above. I've done considerable study on philosophy because once upon a time I wanted to go into it instead of ending up in a field of science. Even empiricists have come up with a lot of mumble jumble to explain what is otherwise a simple, real concept. We live in reality. Therefore, reality is the most likely path towards salvation.What I don't agree with philosophy is it trying to make a mess out of everything.So, yeah, you can try to say that the basis of science is philosophy all you want. Here is my proof to you that philosophy is useless when compared to science, next time you got seriously injured would you rather want to go to a hospital or would you rather go to a philosopher? Would you rather have aerodynamic scientists to be working on airplanes or philosophers? Want to send a man to the moon? Want scientists to work on that or philosophers?Sure, philosophy have a lot of fun reads. But after years of studying it, I'm sorry to say I've found no real use for it. When push comes to shove, nobody wants to go to philosophers for help. They go to scientists.

Allow me to get in the middle of your now dead conversation on philosophy. In a sense, it is true that scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves. To understand this view, you have to understand how reality works. Reality isn't bounded by some magical parameters. Reality is just that, reality. Nature, or reality, doesn't behave. It just acts. What science does is try to find patterns and try to make predictions.The most common mistake people often make when discussing about the laws of physics is that they literally think nature is bounded by the laws of physics. This is why it is a dead give away that you're dealing with an amateur when the person says something like "but it violates the laws of physics" or "this doesn't conform with the 2nd law of thermodynamics". Sound familiar?Try to think of nature as a beast that does its own thing, and science is man's way of trying to understand the beast and attempts to predict the beast's behavior. As to how the beast works, we may never know. Nobody think such thing unless you're a creationist. A couple weeks ago, Neil deGrasse Tyson went on Bill Maher's show. Facing him was a republican senator who was also a strong denier of global warming, or climate change if you want to be politically correct. Tyson said that what's beautiful about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.That said, my direct answer to your question is that science is the only framework of human endeavor that deals directly with reality. No god or allah or buddha bullshit. No trying to predict what the horny old man in the sky wants you to do. Science looks at reality, tries to find patterns, and make predictions. And no where in science is there a stamp that this part or that part cannot be modified... unlike religion (ahem). Science is completely willing to throw away everyrything if tomorrow we find out that everything has been wrong all along.You don't need some philosophical mumble jumble to come up with that. It is purely common sense. If you want to make accurate predictions about reality, it is best to deal with reality, not prayers or faith BS.You want proof of what I said? Just look at how much progress faith healing has made in the last, I don't know... forever? Now, look at how much progress modern medicine has made in the last couple decades?The point is we don't need some philosophical mumble jumble to tell us in obscure language that science is the best way to deal with reality. Science can defend itself on its own two feet. The only reason scientists don't tell philosophers out right to go fuck off is out of politeness.In my lab, we're about to do some new testings of a new material that is a potential replacement for steel in the near future in some areas of construction. Who cares what philosophers have to say in their philosophical mumble jumble? We'll have the numbers to show for the results of our research and, hopefully, more fundings. We don't need some obscure post-modern bullshit to put on our published results. Again, we got the raw data to show for it. That's dealing with reality. Religionists can pray all they want.

First of all, you guys really need to be patient with me. It is now 11pm and I just got back home from work. Been in the lab since early in the morning. You see, some of us actually do real scientific work rather than delve into philosophical mumble jumble. Because nature is not bounded by scientific theories. You could almost say we have faith that nature won't change its behavior on a whim. Again, this is probably the most common mistakes amateurs make when trying to describe the relationship between science and nature. Nature does its own thing no matter what we have to say about it.And again, this is just one perspective that I'm throwing out there. It's like the difference between the glass is half full or half empty. Take it for what it's worth.

You did, when you suggested that nature behaves certain ways. Again, nature is its own beast. The answer to both is your questions are irrelevant. What's relevant are the results.Look, life isn't some philosophical debate. Life is for real. If science stops producing results, I wouldn't hesitate to drop it and look for something else to work with. If tomorrow we find that by praying to Zeus we could produce much better results like the cure to cancer or cure to aging, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to start praying to Zeus.You're somehow trying to put science in the same category as religious dogma. Let me repeat. Science has contributed much. Religion has not. Your questions sound exactly those who insist faith healing should be treated the same with modern medical science. After all, both try to heal people and both have some kind of failure rate. But you see, the difference is faith healing has a failure rate of 100%.Added by edit.Anyway, this argument is silly. I'm trying to present you a different way of looking at it, and you're insistent on not understanding the view. This argument is like the argument of whether the US culture is a melting pot or a salad bowl.That said, you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Let's move on.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

You might as well claim that what color is the moon a philosophical question.I'm going to go off on a tangent here. Your claim that these are philosophical questions is like when the British, French, etc. claimed that everything under the sun was part of their empires. What was that? You just discovered a new continent? That's ours, since we claimed it long before anyone discovered it...I hope you get my point. Of course everything is a philosophical question if you say so. I'm not going to argue with you on that point. What I am saying is that philosophy sounds all nice and neat when you're dealing with these basic questions that I personally object to them being philosophical questions. But then you gotta accept other body parts of philosophy, which consist of nonsense. I'm sure Dennis Markuze makes perfect sense to you...So, yes, go ahead and claim those questions are philosophical questions. You're after all a Brit. I'm not surprised you would do such thing...

Actually, for the sake of consistency, you do. I can't stand here and say I'm pro-gay marriage but anti-polygamy. In the same way, I can't say I'm pro-material science but anti-evolutionary theory.If you accept some parts of philosophy, then you gotta take in all the nonsensical stuff.These basic questions can be answered quite simply by the scientific method or common sense. We don't need philosophical mumble jumble to answer them.Big fan of fashionable nonsense.

Haha, ok. I'll accept this.If you can't tell by now, I am passionate about these subjects. And whenever people find out what I do, they always feel like they have to chime in. Most of the time, I just smile and nod, knowing I can't fix stupid. But sometimes I do try to correct their misconceptions. And one of these misconceptions that I consistently see is the misconception that nature is bounded by the laws of physics. Not just our descriptions of nature's behavior, but they literally believe that there are certain sets of laws that nature follow. I guess people just aren't comfortable with not having angels always pushing things down or a god striking lightnings at people like me.Anyway, your point is well taken.