Philosophy 101

Hi Taz,I think your opinion is way to polarized on this issue. At the basis of science are philosophical principles. 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 ? No, some philosophers, using greek philosophy. Not all philosophies would give you that conclusion. Some philosophies are ill-equipped to deal with reality. While some other philosophies are very well equipped, such as empiricism for example. The problem is that scientists, at the root, are philosophers. It's just that the usefulness of the scientific method is in their philosophy.

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:

Well if said thing can't be proved apart from circular logic, then you accept it as true without proof (as an axiom).But this is once again a philosophical notion. I just don't see how Taz's opinion of philosophy be so polarized that he doesn't realize this.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.Greek philosophies, didn't have the basis for modern science, but they did have the basis for a lot of solid math, for example.

And it is our "fallacious experience" that makes (naive) empiricism alone an insufficient basis for investigating reality.Hence the scientific method and more structured empirical methods we have developed. But can the formulation of these methods be entirely empirically derived or justified? I would say that at root the validity of science is based on a heavy dose of empiricism (i.e. it works), a large dash of rationalism/logic and some skeptically applied "common sense" thrown in too.But the exact mixture and how or why this mixture is as successful as it is remains a philosophical question.

Some of the best sources of stuff pertaining to this are on bathroom walls. One of my favorites was:DesCartes: To be is to DO!
Sartre: To do is to BE!
Sinatra: Do be do be do....But when the going gets tough and the tough get going, I'll settle for John Tyerman Williams' Winnie-ther-Pooh. And of course we all know what ther means....Every philosopher before Pooh was mere part of the preface.
Every philosopher during Pooh was an acolyte.
Every philosopher after Pooh is a disciple.All bow down to the Bear of Very Little Brain!Piglet: "So - are we friends forever?"
Pooh: "Oh yes, and much longer than that."Edited by xongsmith, : correct text

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

And philosophers will probably debate the issue for the next 2,500 years without 1) coming to any conclusions, 2) changing the way science works, or 3) realizing how little use they are to the real world.As long as they stay out of the way of those who are doing productive things they can rub blue mud in their navels on alternate Thursdays for all most scientists care.

Well, I wouldn't say that. I would say that that's what we mean by proof. Which is my I argued against the unqualified dismissal of philosophy.

If "most scientists" take the 'It's obvious' approach to the value of what they do then it is difficult to argue on a purely practical level. But here at EvC we are debating those who insist that their "knowledge" and their "evidence" is just as valid as that garnered by the methods of science. Are they right? If not why not?"It's obvious" is not a very convincing argument to those who do not find it as "obvious" as maybe you or I do.On what basis do scientists derive their methods? Why do they think these methods are superior to other methods? What is tentativity and why is it necessary in science? 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?) I think a few philosophers have had a significant effect on the working of science. Empiricism, falsification, questions of truth etc. etc. These are philosophical stances directly relevant to science. Arguably forming the foundation of Western scientific thought.It is these foundations that the pompous postmodern philosophers we have all been deriding deny as valid.

I have just been to the bathroom. The Graffiti in there said "A poo a day keeps the evil alien probes away"I am guessin this your kinda "philosophy".

In the toliet cubicle in the bathroom just outside the 1st year physics lab, there was the following:There once was a Dr named Newall
Who by nature was terribly cruel
One day in a fit
He pulled out his dick
And buggered the arse off a mule.It does make you think...

It makes me think whether or not Dr Newall ever used those toilets and how he ever managed to get a mule in there with him.

Well, there are a lot of references in those old blues tunes about how there's another mule been kickin' in my stall.....Perhaps we could ask them ol' blues guys?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Written on a bathroom wall in Vanderbilt.
"Excremtos ergo sum."Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

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.

"I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam."Hormel Descartes

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist