Philosophy 101

Hi nwr, Sure can. Now some of these will sound obvious, but remember that you are in a society that implicitly believes these things, but not all societies do. You can ask yourself every time, ''Why was modern science developped here but not elsewhere ?''. Because when we realize that modern science developped in European society, but nowhere else in the world at no other time in history (some, of course, as the greeks, had some of the pieces obviously), it becomes clear that science isn't this simply logical things that only requires ''common sense''.1. The universe exists. Some eastern philosophies believe reality is an illusion, ''the dream of someone else'' for example. Clearly, modern science will never develop in such philosophies.2. There is objective truth, that we can discover.3. The universe orderly. ie it is governed by natural laws which we can discover.4. The universe is rational. The human mind can think logically, and the universe will be understable to us. (3 and 4 are clearly linked, and I think or the most important)5. Humans have the right, and should, investigate the world. Nature is not this sacred untouchable thing. This is one of the assumptions the greeks didn't have. They valued the mind over the physical world, so did not investigate it.Now I guess I could go on, but you get the point. It is all related to the center question, ''Why did science developped here and not elsewhere ?''. Sure science sounds like this so blatantly ntuitive and natural thing to do, that we think it is just obvious to any common sense. But it's not, the reality is, of all history, modern science developped only recently, in a society that just so happened to have all the required foundation for modern science. All other societies either had part of the assumptions, or sometimes none at all.But why did European societies happened to have all these assumptions ? Leading anthropologist and historian of science Loren Eiseley gives us the answer:

quote:

---

the philosophy of experimental science began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to with faith, owes it origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption

---

Eiseley, L., Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Anchor Books, New York, USA, 1961, p. 62Nobel prize winner Melvin Calvin goes even further:

quote:

---

As I try to discern the origin of that conviction [that the universe is orderly], I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.

---

Lennox, J.C., God’s Undertakerhas science buried God?, Lion Hudson, Oxford, 2007, p. 19.(I think I maybe opened a can of worms with that last quote )AbE See what Dr.A said.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Yet people still argue whether science is empiricist or rationalist.Psychology is mostly done on empiricist principles, but it a rather weak science. Physics, one of the most successful sciences, often looks more rationalist than empiricist. I would like to see that deduction.Empiricist philosophy and rationalist philosophy are mostly made-up "just so" stories.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

How do you decide what is real and what isn't?
How do you decide what is "known" and what isn't?Bearing in mind that many on this very board claim to "know" things to be "real" on the basis of "evidence" that you and I very probably agree is utter nonsense. Because they define "real" and "know" and "evidence" differently to the scientific basis that you and I would probably agree upon.

Ok I'll be honest that I do not a whole lot of knowledge on the difference from empiricism and rationism, feel free to educate me.I had assumed that science was empiricist.

That does not require a philosophical principle. It is the naive commonsense view. If you look at George Berkeley's version of empiricism, you will see that such views were not limited to eastern philosophies. And let's not forget the anti-realists. It is my understanding that some quantum physicists are anti-realist. Personally, I believe that to be false. In any case, this principle seems to be more important to religion than to science. As I see it, the universe is a disorderly place. But that does not prevent science from investigating it. There's a psychological literature on this. For example,
N. Stuart Sutherland: "Irrationality: the enemy within" I'm wondering why you consider that a philosophical principle, given that most philosophers don't actually practice it.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Do you think you would still think this was the naive commonsense view if you were born in a society who believed we lived in someone else's dream, for example ? It is a question more important to philosophies, but did you notice Eiseley in the previous quote called ''experimental science'' a philosophy.The reality is that science, as a way of approaching the world, must have an answer to the question: ''Does objective truth exist ?''. In fact, it must answer that question with a resounding Yes!. Not only that, but it most believe that we can investigate and discover truth, even though in science, we only claim to have tentatively found it. It does not prevent science from investigating it because it is orderly, although it does seem disorderly. I'm not quite sure how this relates to what I said, so you could explain a bit more.From what I read as commentaries it looks like an interesting read, however. Because it is not a philosophical principle in all of the many philosophies one can have. That is why most philosophers don't actually practice it.The 'philosophers' that do practice it, we call them scientists today I guess.

Empiricism is the view that we acquire knowledge by making observations, and using deduction and induction on those observations.Rationalism is the view that we come into the world with a considerable amount of innate knowledge, and that these innate ideas are the basis for our knowledge.I'm sure that's oversimplified. Rationalists do not deny that we make observations. But they insist that we start with innate ideas.Einstein supposedly developed his theory of relativity without knowledge of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is taken, by some, as support of rationalist philosophy.My own view: the relation between observations and knowledge is more complex than philosophers (both rationalist and empiricist) assume.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Are you saying that the answer is not obvious to you?I can explain further if required?

Would you care to share your personal philosophy with us all here?

It may be blindingly obvious to you that the be-all-and-end-all of existence and measure of successfully understanding reality is the ability to put men on the moon or fly aeroplanes. But others may place greater emphasis on other less tangible areas. For example one may decide that spiritual well-being (whatever that may be) is the most important facet of ones life. And on this basis go on to conclude that knowledge of God’s existence is at least as valid as scientific knowledge pertaining to aerodynamics because that knowledge enhances ones reality in a more important way.Do I subscribe to this line of argument? No. I very much do not.But nor do I think the simplistic and over-repetitive citation of putting men on the moon entirely counters the position of those who do make such arguments. For that you need a more philosophical understanding of why and how science does what it does. Understanding objectivity, the nature of evidence, the limitations of evidence, tentativity of conclusions etc. etc. etc. Things that science itself cannot directly derive about itself. That's just stupid. You might as well say particle physics is useless because the next time you need a filing you would go to a dentist rather than a particle physicist.

Thanks, I'm not all that well versed in philosophy. Then again, Einstein seemed like a unique character. It seemed like he only needed a hint or two from nature, all the rest was mere confirmation (from the words of my relativity book). But that statement is simply coming from your own 'philosophy' on the relationship between observation and knowledge.I think at the heart of the problem here is that some just lump all of the philosophers and Philosophy into one basket, and then try to distance themselves and science from this, not realising that at the basis of it science is a philosophy itself.

Ummmm, no. not only is the answer not obvious, I dont even know what the question was.

The question pertained to the parallelisation of the orthogonal ontology of Cartesian hegemony in a genderised self objectifying modal construct.Obviously.

Yes. But perhaps I should clarify. When I say it is the naive commonsense view, I mean that it is the view that children would have before they absorbed the ideas that come from the culture. The simple answer to that question should be "no, it doesn't exist."Scientists strive to make true statements about the world. That, I do not question. But that only requires that truth be a quality of certain statements. The assertion "There is objective truth, that we can discover" requires that truth exist as an independent entity, rather than as a quality of statements. It is very much a theological claim. Science has no need for that assumption. Most scientists assume that there is order in the universe, and that they are discovering that order. However, I cannot find any evidence that the practice of science depends on that. As best I can tell, if the universe is orderly, then there is no method known to science whereby we could discover that order.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Oh, I see now. How silly of me not to glean that from the start. Will this Parallelissation of my Cartesian gonads hedge my chances in getting chicks? Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.