|
Author
|
Topic: Philosophy 101
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 12 of 190 (606177)
02-24-2011 2:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
02-23-2011 9:13 PM
|
|
Re: 2,500 years and counting
The few contributions we have from philosophy (logic, etc.) could just as easily have come from other fields as needed. Alternatively, it could be argued that these would constitute contributions to philosophy no matter what the job title of the person who came up with them. It depends, of course, on how you define philosophy, and I should like to see someone have a go at that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2011 9:13 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 21 of 190 (606217)
02-24-2011 11:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by slevesque
02-24-2011 10:36 AM
|
|
(How do I size it down a bit ?) By not presenting it as a cartoon. Oh, and the Greeks won the Peloponnesian War. They also lost it. It was a civil war. That's how civil wars go. Later on, the Thebans kicked the arse of the Spartans. Then the Romans took the whole lot of them. Then the Turks did the Byzantine Empire. Then we kicked the shit out of the Turks. History is not the last court of appeal.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by slevesque, posted 02-24-2011 10:36 AM | | slevesque has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2011 11:47 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 28 of 190 (606246)
02-24-2011 12:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by Blue Jay
02-24-2011 11:47 AM
|
|
The cartoon only says Athens lost the Peloponnesian War, which is accurate. But no reason to knock the Greeks, which I felt was implied. It's a fairly minor point, but if one is going to look at a cartoon putting down the Greeks on the grounds that they lost the Peloponnesian War, then it is perhaps pertinent to point out that the people to whom they lost the Peloponnesian War were in fact other Greeks. And they beat the shit out of the Persians.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2011 11:47 AM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 32 of 190 (606267)
02-24-2011 2:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
02-24-2011 2:05 PM
|
|
Re: Empiricism.....?
So you use scientific evidence in order to prove that science is a superior method of investigation ? Doesn't this sound a bit circular to you ? Yes, it does "sound a bit circular". But try doing without it, and see how thoroughly screwed you are. In the words of David Hume:
Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by slevesque, posted 02-24-2011 2:05 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 37 of 190 (606276)
02-24-2011 2:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by slevesque
02-24-2011 2:23 PM
|
|
Re: Empiricism.....?
Well if said thing can't be proved apart from circular logic, then you accept it as true without proof ... Well, I wouldn't say that. I would say that that's what we mean by proof.
Some philosophies simply have different characteristics in terms of real-life application. Sure, a boatload of philosophies are just garbage, but some do give us a correct way to approach the world and to think. Which is my I argued against the unqualified dismissal of philosophy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by slevesque, posted 02-24-2011 2:23 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 44 of 190 (606301)
02-24-2011 4:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by slevesque
02-24-2011 2:23 PM
|
|
Re: Empiricism.....?
Well if said thing can't be proved apart from circular logic, then you accept it as true without proof (as an axiom). But if you are going to say that sort of thing, then it becomes so general as to become meaningless. I just looked out of the window and saw a tree. This cannot be proved apart from circular logic in the sense that you mean this phrase. But I would add that there is a tree outside my window. And if you were here, you'd agree on this too. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by slevesque, posted 02-24-2011 2:23 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 51 of 190 (606343)
02-25-2011 12:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by nwr
02-25-2011 12:06 AM
|
|
Re: Empiricism.....?
If Taz were using scientific assumptions to prove the value of science, then that would be circular (assuming what you are trying to prove). But if he is using evidence, that takes him outside the chain of reasoning and breaks the circle. Well, the problem would be that the idea that evidence has value is itself a "scientific assumption". The use of evidence does not break the circle, it's part of it. --- This is usually the point at which I start quoting Hume's Dialogues.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by nwr, posted 02-25-2011 12:06 AM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by Taz, posted 02-25-2011 12:52 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 55 of 190 (606385)
02-25-2011 9:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Straggler
02-25-2011 7:06 AM
|
|
Re: Jonosiphy
Having read it through your post again I am now certain that you don't think that it's meaningful. We get to read a lot of gibberish on these forums, but I know you well enough that when you started gibbering about "natural logarithms" you were just taking the piss. Your post was just computer-generated, wasn't it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2011 7:06 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2011 9:32 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 133 of 190 (606745)
02-28-2011 5:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by Jon
02-27-2011 11:18 AM
|
|
Re: Scientific Theories Vs Arbitrary Conventions
Can we witness an eclipse without use of the observational methodologies so central to the scientific method? In plain English you seem to be asking if we can observe an eclipse without observing one. No, we can't. What of it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by Jon, posted 02-27-2011 11:18 AM | | Jon has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 135 by Jon, posted 02-28-2011 2:08 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2