Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Philosophy 101
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 190 (609186)
03-17-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Straggler
03-17-2011 6:41 AM


The Point
... is still missed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 03-17-2011 6:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by xongsmith, posted 03-17-2011 2:19 PM Jon has replied
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2011 7:56 AM Jon has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 152 of 190 (609188)
03-17-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Straggler
03-17-2011 6:08 AM


Re: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:
Who remotely suggested that it is?
If scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves then how are scientific theories able to yield accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature?
You did, when you suggested that nature behaves certain ways. Again, nature is its own beast.
How do you decide what is real and what isn't?
How do you decide what is "known" and what isn't?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 03-17-2011 6:08 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 03-17-2011 8:09 PM Taz has replied
 Message 162 by bluegenes, posted 03-17-2011 8:23 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2011 8:14 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 153 of 190 (609193)
03-17-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Straggler
03-17-2011 6:08 AM


Re: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:
On what basis do scientists derive their methods? Why are these methods superior to other methods? What is tentativity and why is it necessary in science? What is evidence and what forms can it take? How do we judge what is science and what is not? What is it that science is actually seeking to do? And is that aim meaningful or logically justifiable? (and how much does it matter if it isn't?). These are philosophical questions. You may not think that they matter. Maybe in an utterly practical 'putting men on the moon' sort of way they don't matter. But does that make them worthless questions?
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 03-17-2011 6:08 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Jon, posted 03-17-2011 12:06 PM Taz has replied
 Message 160 by Modulous, posted 03-17-2011 6:48 PM Taz has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 190 (609195)
03-17-2011 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Taz
03-17-2011 11:52 AM


Re: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
But then you gotta accept other body parts of philosophy, which consist of nonsense.
Of course one needn't do any such thing.

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Taz, posted 03-17-2011 11:52 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Taz, posted 03-17-2011 12:11 PM Jon has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 155 of 190 (609197)
03-17-2011 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Jon
03-17-2011 12:06 PM


Re: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Of course one needn't do any 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Jon, posted 03-17-2011 12:06 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Jon, posted 03-17-2011 1:06 PM Taz has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 190 (609204)
03-17-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Taz
03-17-2011 12:11 PM


You CAN Have One without the Other
Actually, for the sake of consistency, you do. I can't stand here and say I'm pro-gay marriage but anti-polygamy.
Of course you could; consistency has nothing to do with it.
In the same way, I can't say I'm pro-material science but anti-evolutionary theory.
False analogy.
If you accept some parts of philosophy, then you gotta take in all the nonsensical stuff.
Nope.

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Taz, posted 03-17-2011 12:11 PM Taz has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 157 of 190 (609207)
03-17-2011 1:42 PM


Philosophy and other nonsense...
The above series of posts are why many, of not most, scientists pay no attention to philosophy or philosophers.
And I think it has been for the better.
You can only chase your tail around in circles for so long before you get tired of the whole thing.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 158 of 190 (609210)
03-17-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Jon
03-17-2011 11:18 AM


Re: The Point
Jon writes:
... is still missed.
Perhaps you could explain this to me, instead of to Straggler? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Straggler's examples all support his point. You have no such examples that I can see.
Imagine I'm in grade school. Dumb it down to the bottom.
Show me, Jon.
What is the point you are trying to make? Is this still semantics?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Jon, posted 03-17-2011 11:18 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Jon, posted 03-17-2011 6:32 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 190 (609252)
03-17-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by xongsmith
03-17-2011 2:19 PM


Re: The Point
Perhaps you could explain this to me, instead of to Straggler? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Straggler's examples all support his point. You have no such examples that I can see.
Imagine I'm in grade school. Dumb it down to the bottom.
Show me, Jon.
What is the point you are trying to make? Is this still semantics?
What do a concept of a dog and a concept of a god have in common?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by xongsmith, posted 03-17-2011 2:19 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2011 8:27 AM Jon has replied

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


Message 160 of 190 (609253)
03-17-2011 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Taz
03-17-2011 11:52 AM


Psychosis and philosophy
Science doesn't dictate how nature behaves.
Science explains difficult to understand things in nature in terms of much simpler things, to such an extent that predictions about future behaviour are possible and verifiable.
It does this better than intuition.
It does this better than revelation.
It does this better than studying ideal forms.
I'm sure Dennis Markuze makes perfect sense to you
This isn't a direct reply to you, Taz, but this quote seems like a good springboard.
Imagine you are psychotic. Not like in the films or on many TV shows....let me help with the mindset I'm looking for you to imagine: First off, you are anxious. A gnawing fear of some unseen fate. The walls in your room seem concave as they loom menacingly. You realize you are experiencing a bad mental scenario, but you have go to work. Fortunately you work within walking distance from home - but walking with mild hallucinations carries risks.
As you round a corner that man is standing there. You recognize that he's been following you for a few weeks. Checking on you. The fear begins to double, the unseen fate begins to be seen. Once they know the patterns, they will lie in wait and spring the worst trap bringing everything you've worked for down.
He's worried about the man
Of course he's worried, what does he have in his pocket?
Poison
"It's not poison.", you say, attempting to persuade yourself.
It's not poison! It's not poison!
they jeer, mockingly.
The point is - how does a person that goes through this, manage to function? People who undergo mild psychosis with insight often gravitate towards strange beliefs as a coping mechanism (superstitions, OCD or other rituals, spiritualism, remote viewing etc). Another possibility is an attraction towards philosophy.
Normal people may take it for granted that a certain skeptical empiricism is the way to go and until it's shown to not work which is fine - the work has been done to show and any present day work to try and show it not to work are fraught with problems, fallacies and so on. Naturally - there is some degree of credulity in normal people, but it only mildly impacts them if at all and they tend not to be that bothered.
But for someone who experiences psychosis the problems of 'what is real? what is true? what is right?' is a personal crisis that strikes ferociously and almost always is initially dealt with alone. It isn't a matter of mild academic interest, it's a matter of survival or at least of camouflage.
One option is to surrender to them, believe you are the saviour of humankind and begin to write barely coherent screeds and other Great Works.
But another option is acknowledge some beliefs are delusional. Some perceptions are erroneous. And to try and figure out a way of telling the real from the false. Epistemology is the place to learn the right questions to ask, logic helps determine which arguments follow naturally, science provides a paragon of execution that can rarely be achieved from an individual day-to-day subjective perspective.
As far as I know - most people that struggle with psychosis don't gravitate immediately to rational empiricism as a means to remain functional in society. But if they seek professional help, a significant part of that help involves developing what is sometimes called 'reality testing skills'. Another way of saying 'a more sensible series of epistemological habits based on exploring available evidence and using reasoning skills that conform with logic'...that is to say: learning to interpret evidence using reason in a not strictly scientific fashion (one can't really perform sociological studies of one's friends to see if they are genuinely consipring for instance).
Of course, some people who experience psychosis, do discover philosophies that assist them towards being high functioning individuals. They do tend to be a little obsessive about it, going onto forums and writing thousands of posts on it and related subjects, occasionally all but vanishing for months at a time as symptoms flare up only to return with a barely disguised semi-auto-biographical rant.


For the OP:
Straggler writes:
Is philosophy a load of navel gazing pompous pointless nonsense? or does philosophy provide us with the foundations on which science and society are formed?
Other than its vitally important point to me, personally (heh, navel gazing indeed) - coming up with useful answers so very often depends on asking the right questions. Even if you despise philosophy you have to admit that its a pretty good question generation machine, even if you want to argue that there is a poor Signal-to-Noise Ratio.
Straggler writes:
I would say a bit of both. I think real philosophy is absolutely vital to the sort of questions EvC is designed to contend with. BUT there is undoubtably a contingent of philosophers who need their superior post-modern bubble to be burst. As per Alan Sokal and the Fashionable Nonsense
Postmodernists are more likely to say something like "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves" for instance - but postmodernism is often misunderstood because it is incredibally difficult to do postmodernism without sounding like a gibbering madman (often because postmodernism has a streak of epistemological nihilism that is a mile wide). Those that are regarded as its founders are often saying perfectly sensible things. But the 'knowledge is merely opinion', 'facts are worldview biased subjective observations' drivel I think can be traced to postmodernism.
When postmodernists consider whether postmodernism is a culturally derived construct with no meaning beyond the hallowed walls of philosophy lectures and book reviews...I dare say they become angsty existentialists.

Finally - my expanded view of this subject can be read in my responses to this thread's grandfather, On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy. For obvious reasons there are so many reasons not to press submit, but for once I think I will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Taz, posted 03-17-2011 11:52 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2011 3:27 PM Modulous has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 161 of 190 (609263)
03-17-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Taz
03-17-2011 11:28 AM


Re: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Taz writes:
You did, when you suggested that nature behaves certain ways. Again, nature is its own beast.
Straggler is arguing the point that scientific theories do have something to say about how nature behaves. Someone else on the thread has declared that they don't. You seem to have chimed in on the thread under the misconception that Straggler thinks that scientific theories dictate how nature behaves.
Look at the word "say".
When someone says "grass grows", they are saying something about how nature behaves. Hypotheses about how and why grass grows say something about how nature behaves whether they're right or wrong. So, taken literally, Straggler is indisputably correct when he claims that scientific theories have something to say about how nature behaves.
Yet:
Taz writes:
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.
Look up the verb "to behave" and the chances are your dictionary will give "to act" as a synonym. Perhaps the problem is that you're thinking of when your mother used to say "behave yourself, Taz". That's just short for "behave yourself properly". You're always behaving (like all organisms), and would have been behaving badly when she gave the command. Everything behaves. Haven't you ever tested the behaviour of metals under stress in your lab, or the behaviour of substances under varying conditions, like temperature?
Taz writes:
What science does is try to find patterns and try to make predictions.
Right. Patterns of behaviour, and predictions of how things might behave.
Taz writes:
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.
Straggler certainly does not think that. He knows very well that our laws and theories are tentative descriptions and explanations of nature's behaviour, and are regarded as falsifiable. Our constructs are not commands or restrictions that nature will necessarily obey, like your mother's "behave yourself", is what you're saying. Quite correct, but that doesn't mean that the laws and theories don't have something to say about how nature behaves.
Taz writes:
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?
I understand your point here, but it's not always true. If someone tells you that they have just seen an apple fall upwards from a tree, you would be perfectly justified in pointing out that a law was being violated, because that violation illustrates that the person is making an extraordinary claim, even though you're aware that our laws don't dictate nature's actions and can turn out to have exceptions, and not be universal.
Taz writes:
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.
And now the beast, like all things, is exhibiting behaviour, which it wasn't earlier in the post. Good .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Taz, posted 03-17-2011 11:28 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Taz, posted 03-17-2011 10:38 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 164 by nwr, posted 03-17-2011 11:56 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 162 of 190 (609266)
03-17-2011 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Taz
03-17-2011 11:28 AM


Scientific theories certainly have something to say about how nature behaves.
Apologies. Double post.
Edited by bluegenes, : double post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Taz, posted 03-17-2011 11:28 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 163 of 190 (609276)
03-17-2011 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by bluegenes
03-17-2011 8:09 PM


Re: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 03-17-2011 8:09 PM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 164 of 190 (609278)
03-17-2011 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by bluegenes
03-17-2011 8:09 PM


Re: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
bluegenes writes:
When someone says "grass grows", they are saying something about how nature behaves. Hypotheses about how and why grass grows say something about how nature behaves whether they're right or wrong.
Hypotheses and theories are different things.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 03-17-2011 8:09 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by bluegenes, posted 03-18-2011 5:20 AM nwr has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 165 of 190 (609290)
03-18-2011 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by nwr
03-17-2011 11:56 PM


Re: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
nwr writes:
Hypotheses and theories are different things.
Yes. And both have something to say about how nature behaves, don't you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by nwr, posted 03-17-2011 11:56 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nwr, posted 03-18-2011 9:41 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024