Do clever people outsmart themselves?

[bruto]

Well I am! And I................oh, I see..........

Welcome to the peanut gallery.

 

[David Mo]

(...). Quit overthinking this. It's not that complicated.

Philosophy merely means love (Philo) of wisdom (sophia) Science was originally another word for knowledge.

Science or knowledge is not a replacement for wisdom. But I don't see how you can love wisdom while dismissing knowledge.

There are many definitions of philosophy. The definition of philosophy --if it is one-- as love to wisdom is by Socrates. It is due to his scepticism. Philosophy as an a way to an unattainable goal.
Plato was more dogmatic. He defined two ways of knowledge: episteme (science) and techne. Science was the true knowledge. Necessary, rational and so on. Techne was only fruit of practice. This is not true knowledge but opinion.

There are two historical definitions. They are not currently in use, except for some poethical philosophy. "Love to widsom" is obviously vague and fits with almost anything.

Generally, "wisdom" is to understand how a more extensive word than "knowledge". It implies some kind of practical knowledge. And you are right. Both are linked. Even in intelligence we speak of "emotional intelligence" as well. If you didn't have both, you would be unable of develop your intelligence in society. The same goes for knowledge and wisdom.

But I don't know what this has to do with my previous comment. If it means that the person who dedicates himself to philosophy of science must have a deep knowledge of science, of course. From what I've read, most people do. That scientists have the same knowledge of philosophy, I'm not so sure. From what I have read it seems to me that they often talk with second-hand ideas.

 

[David Mo]

What nailed it was ultimately that there are now ways to make it go away. You start taking the antipsychotic pills, or conversely stop eating the funny mushrooms, and the demons go away.

So in a sense we're back to reality being the part that doesn't.

But taking them out of the way with pills doesn't mean it's your will that modifies them. It's like I'm taking my boss out of the way by throwing him off a cliff. My boss would not cease to be something real.

The case of the reality of hallucinations is not easy to solve. As it shows that there are people who believe that they are more real than real life. An additional clause should be introduced. In the sense of intersubjectivity or something similar. I believe that there is no single criterion of reality.

 

[HansMustermann]

But taking them out of the way with pills doesn't mean it's your will that modifies them. It's like I'm taking my boss out of the way by throwing him off a cliff. My boss would not cease to be something real.

The difference is that he doesn't really disappear, he just might end up a bit flatter, wider and less breathing. It's also that we know how those pills work, most importantly that they only affect your own brain.

So basically if you can take anything, or do any ritual you wish, as long as it only affects yourself and your boss disappears, well, he probably wasn't real.

The case of the reality of hallucinations is not easy to solve. As it shows that there are people who believe that they are more real than real life. An additional clause should be introduced. In the sense of intersubjectivity or something similar. I believe that there is no single criterion of reality.

I'm not sure intersubjectivity would actually solve it, to be honest. I mean, I'm all for it on other domains, but for defining what is real, it has already failed epically before.

To wit, as I've mentioned before, you could actually be put on top of a nice pile of wood if a couple of your neighbours dreamed that you're a witch.

Really, it failed both ways. Both as the way to reach a shared understanding, and as the social contract that defined that that's not only real enough, but reliable enough to be admissible evidence in a trial.


Personally I would think that a much better test is something more objective. And luckily we nowadays can rely on more than just our senses. So basically if you manage to get a demon to actually show on film in a controlled setting, well, we might actually believe it's real.

 

[HansMustermann]

On another note, I should clarify that my MAIN point wasn't as much about the nature of reality, but really just a more general pragmatic principle: if it doesn't make any (detectable) difference to the problem being discussed, then leave it out.

E.g., if what you have to solve is designing an airplane piston engine that can do 1000hp and have an efficiency of at least 29%, then you can leave out such irrelevant issues as what colour they'll paint the plane, or whether they'll allow liquids on board, or whether the pilot's wife is cheating on him. Stuff like the octane number for the fuel used is relevant, because it directly limits your compression ratio. Stuff like whether the pilot is using his trips to Thailand to get a happy ending massage, is not.

Seems reasonable enough, right?

Well, I'm saying it's no different for the nature of reality. It may well be interesting for some issues, or as a philosophical discussion in its own right, but if it doesn't affect any practical issue at hand, it is irrelevant by definition.

Basically, I see a lot of using that nature of reality being used as a red herring. Basically some form of "but what you perceive as a tiger is really a lot of empty space with atoms in it, and/or you don't know if it's a simulation, and/or you don't directly perceive the real tiger but a mental representation of it, bla, bla, bla, therefore it's ok to believe in magical thinking." Not necessarily in those exact words, but that's the implied payload.

All I'm saying is, "Ok, does that make any difference? Even if it were a simulation or a mental representation, can you make the tigers disappear? No? Then it makes no difference, and you should still stay out of the cage anyway."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because people who argue the "What if you're in a simulation" defense don't actually care about the possibility of reality being a simulation.

They care about either

A) An out for their Woo.
B) An argumentative cop-out for their Woo.

It's not an honest argument and can't be approached like one.

 

[HansMustermann]

Pretty much, yes. Which is why I'd rather just call the argument irrelevant and move on.

 

[JesseCuster]

It seems to me we are on this earth to work things out for ourselves … they may find they can open their hearts … I think history has been …

It seems to me that your posts are full of wishy washy statements that make it seem like you're up to nothing more than wishful thinking.

There's no substance behind anything you have said in this thread. It's all complete and total fluff.

 

[acbytesla]

There are many definitions of philosophy. The definition of philosophy --if it is one-- as love to wisdom is by Socrates. It is due to his scepticism. Philosophy as an a way to an unattainable goal.
Plato was more dogmatic. He defined two ways of knowledge: episteme (science) and techne. Science was the true knowledge. Necessary, rational and so on. Techne was only fruit of practice. This is not true knowledge but opinion.

There are two historical definitions. They are not currently in use, except for some poethical philosophy. "Love to widsom" is obviously vague and fits with almost anything.

Generally, "wisdom" is to understand how a more extensive word than "knowledge". It implies some kind of practical knowledge. And you are right. Both are linked. Even in intelligence we speak of "emotional intelligence" as well. If you didn't have both, you would be unable of develop your intelligence in society. The same goes for knowledge and wisdom.

But I don't know what this has to do with my previous comment. If it means that the person who dedicates himself to philosophy of science must have a deep knowledge of science, of course. From what I've read, most people do. That scientists have the same knowledge of philosophy, I'm not so sure. From what I have read it seems to me that they often talk with second-hand ideas.

Philosophy of science? Seriously? It seems as if you're obsessed with overthinking. I see science as simply the pursuit of knowledge. What we do with that knowledge has to with what we value and that of course has sociological and philosophical implications.

 

[David Mo]

The difference is that he doesn't really disappear, he just might end up a bit flatter, wider and less breathing. It's also that we know how those pills work, most importantly that they only affect your own brain.

So basically if you can take anything, or do any ritual you wish, as long as it only affects yourself and your boss disappears, well, he probably wasn't real.



I'm not sure intersubjectivity would actually solve it, to be honest. I mean, I'm all for it on other domains, but for defining what is real, it has already failed epically before.

To wit, as I've mentioned before, you could actually be put on top of a nice pile of wood if a couple of your neighbours dreamed that you're a witch.

Really, it failed both ways. Both as the way to reach a shared understanding, and as the social contract that defined that that's not only real enough, but reliable enough to be admissible evidence in a trial.


Personally I would think that a much better test is something more objective. And luckily we nowadays can rely on more than just our senses. So basically if you manage to get a demon to actually show on film in a controlled setting, well, we might actually believe it's real.

It may also be that the pill has dulled your vision. It's possible. In any case, you have added one more feature apart from the will.

Intersubjectivity does not mean submitting to everything your neighbors say. It is that you cannot be sure of things that only you see. And refined criteria of intersubjectivity, such as science: controlled experimentation. For example.

 

[David Mo]

On another note, I should clarify that my MAIN point wasn't as much about the nature of reality, but really just a more general pragmatic principle: if it doesn't make any (detectable) difference to the problem being discussed, then leave it out.

E.g., if what you have to solve is designing an airplane piston engine that can do 1000hp and have an efficiency of at least 29%, then you can leave out such irrelevant issues as what colour they'll paint the plane, or whether they'll allow liquids on board, or whether the pilot's wife is cheating on him. Stuff like the octane number for the fuel used is relevant, because it directly limits your compression ratio. Stuff like whether the pilot is using his trips to Thailand to get a happy ending massage, is not.

Seems reasonable enough, right?

Well, I'm saying it's no different for the nature of reality. It may well be interesting for some issues, or as a philosophical discussion in its own right, but if it doesn't affect any practical issue at hand, it is irrelevant by definition.

Basically, I see a lot of using that nature of reality being used as a red herring. Basically some form of "but what you perceive as a tiger is really a lot of empty space with atoms in it, and/or you don't know if it's a simulation, and/or you don't directly perceive the real tiger but a mental representation of it, bla, bla, bla, therefore it's ok to believe in magical thinking." Not necessarily in those exact words, but that's the implied payload.

All I'm saying is, "Ok, does that make any difference? Even if it were a simulation or a mental representation, can you make the tigers disappear? No? Then it makes no difference, and you should still stay out of the cage anyway."

It may look like a red herring to you, but it led and leads the great minds of quantum mechanics upside-down. In an argument with Bohr, Heisenberg ended up crying. Of course, for an applied science problem you don't have to discuss reality. One follows a protocol and nothing else. But I am referring to another level of science. When scientists try to understand what they are really doing.

 

[David Mo]

Philosophy of science? Seriously? It seems as if you're obsessed with overthinking. I see science as simply the pursuit of knowledge. What we do with that knowledge has to with what we value and that of course has sociological and philosophical implications.

No one doubts that science is a kind of knowledge. The safest. But what kind? That's where the problems and divergences between philosophers and scientists who care about what science is begin. And I swear to you that they may have very divergent opinions. If so, is it overthinking? It depends on the point of view.

But I'm rather surprised that someone says that to think about these things is to think too much in a forum that deals with philosophy. Why shouldn't we think about them? Do they hurt the head?

 

[HansMustermann]

It may look like a red herring to you, but it led and leads the great minds of quantum mechanics upside-down. In an argument with Bohr, Heisenberg ended up crying. Of course, for an applied science problem you don't have to discuss reality. One follows a protocol and nothing else. But I am referring to another level of science. When scientists try to understand what they are really doing.

You'll notice the repeated qualifier "for the problem at hand."

Any detail can be relevant for one problem or another. But it's irrelevant for other problems. I.e., it doesn't mean that every problem must get bogged in discussing every detail.

In the case of QM, sure, the exact nature of protons would be very relevant if we were discussing the large hadron collider and the search for the Higgs boson. But it's irrelevant when the discussion is whether magical thinking can make the tiger disappear.

Essentially, think of it in terms of elementary logic and syllogisms. Any premise that is connected to the conclusion is ok. Any premise that is not connected to the conclusion is, however, irrelevant.

Sure, exactly which is which, depends on the exact argument, but nevertheless, one must know which is which.

 

[acbytesla]

No one doubts that science is a kind of knowledge. The safest. But what kind? That's where the problems and divergences between philosophers and scientists who care about what science is begin. And I swear to you that they may have very divergent opinions. If so, is it overthinking? It depends on the point of view.

But I'm rather surprised that someone says that to think about these things is to think too much in a forum that deals with philosophy. Why shouldn't we think about them? Do they hurt the head?

Really? Philosophy of Science? Go ahead think about it. No one is stopping you. You're just boring the rest of us. Does it get you anywhere? Me, I'd rather learn, than think about learning.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Me, I'd rather learn, than think about learning.

And this right here is the base difference, exact semantics and "well acskhually" technicalities aside, between fans of science/rationality and fans of philosophy.

 

[acbytesla]

And this right here is the base difference, exact semantics and "well acskhually" technicalities aside, between fans of science/rationality and fans of philosophy.

I don't want to dismiss philosophy as something worthless. But I do believe David overdoes it. Philosophizing science? Give me a break. He's overdoing a good thing. I appreciate the crops of philosophy, but I have no interest in wallowing in its fertilizer.

 

[Scorpion]

Wittgenstein supposed that there was nothing left for philosophers to do but an analysis of language.
I believe this is because he thought they had been left behind by the advances of physics and only someone capable of understanding modern cosmology and the mathematics involved in it, could hope to have any idea of the true nature of things.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't want to dismiss philosophy as something worthless.

I don't want to, but as time goes on I flip flop more and more one whether or not I sort of have to.

Conceptually of course I have no problem with the base idea of, basically, thinking about thinking. Very esoteric questions of base reality, our thoughts, our language, and the like are necessary and do have their place.

But as time marches on any of those question being thought out only in the context broad, vague "philosophy" seems more and more quaint if I'm being generous, downright anti-intellectual if I'm being honest.

Physics is answering more and more of the base questions of reality, neuroscience the same for questions of ethics and morality (caterwauling from the peanut gallery not withstanding), there's not a lot of question that you don't need science to answer and once we accept that the distinction between answer we get from science and questions that science is just outright answering start becoming fairly hairsplitty fairly quickly.

Sure there will always be the people who basically define philosophy (or related) as questions science has answered yet, but that's a rather pointless and eternally shifting goalpost. And endless recursion of "And then?" is next only to the silly word games as thing souring me most on philosophy these days.

I guess if I have a point to all this is that as time goes on the parts of philosophy that haven't been spun off into their own distinct scientific disciplines is getting pretty thin.

At this point in our intellectual development as a species saying "I'm going to solve this problem using PHILOSOPHY!" is like going "I'm going to build a machine to perform this task." It's to vague. Not just vague but meaningless.

And more and more the vagueness is starting the feel more like a feature than a bug.

Does that mean I'm "against philosophy?" *Shrugs* Hell if I know. There's so much semantics and categorization and "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?" meaninglessness in that question I don't know if it even has an answer.

There's certainly things in the concept of philosophy I think are useful, but on any practical level the... well point is shrinking rapidly for me. And even in philosophy something that has no point well... has no point.

So somewhere in all that is the closest thing to an answer I can give.

I believe this is because he thought they had been left behind by the advances of physics and only someone capable of understanding modern cosmology and the mathematics involved in it, could hope to have any idea of the true nature of things.

Listen I'm gonna tell you something I've told a lot of people over the years.

If you want to waltz in and declare that we're all "thinking" the wrong way... you can't be wrong about literally everything.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't want to, but as time goes on I flip flop more and more one whether or not I sort of have to.

Conceptually of course I have no problem with the base idea of, basically, thinking about thinking. Very esoteric questions of base reality, our thoughts, our language, and the like are necessary and do have their place.

But as time marches on any of those question being thought out only in the context broad, vague "philosophy" seems more and more quaint if I'm being generous, downright anti-intellectual if I'm being honest.

Physics is answering more and more of the base questions of reality are being answered by physics, neuroscience the same for questions of ethics and morality (caterwauling from the peanut gallery not withstanding), there's not a lot of question that you don't need science to answer and once we accept that the distinction between answer we get from science and questions that science is just outright answering start becoming fairly hairsplitty fairly quickly.

Sure there will always be the people who basically define philosophy (or related) as questions science has answered yet, but that's a rather pointless and eternally shifting goalpost. And endless recursion of "And then?" is next only to the silly word games as thing souring me most on philosophy these days.

I guess if I have a point to all this is that as time goes on the parts of philosophy that haven't been spun off into their own distinct scientific disciplines is getting pretty thin.

At this point in our intellectual development as a species saying "I'm going to solve this problem using PHILOSOPHY!" is like going "I'm going to build a machine to perform this task." It's to vague. Not just vague but meaningless.

And more and more the vagueness is starting the feel more like a feature than a bug.

Does that mean I'm "against philosophy?" *Shrugs* Hell if I know. There's so much semantics and categorization and "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?" meaninglessness in the that question I don't know if it even has an answer.

There's certainly things in the concept of philosophy I think are useful, but on any practical level that... well point is shrinking rapidly for me. And even in philosophy something that has no point well... has no point.

So somewhere in all that is the closest thing to an answer I can give.



Listen I'm gonna tell you something I've told a lot of people over the years.

If you want to waltz in and declare that we're all "thinking" the wrong way... you can't be wrong about literally everything.

Philosophy covers a wide range of subjects and really is the basis of all education. There are some great principles worth learning. Such as logic and critical thinking.

A lot of this people know intuitively. I still remember taking logic in college and thinking "duh". I felt like I had been practicing using those syllogisms since elementary school. I just didn't know there was a word for them. But some people never understand that a step by step logical thought process provides a solid foundation to learning and more importantly understanding. I'm convinced that Logic should be taught in elementary school.

Moral philosophy is also important. I think everyone should study John Rawls.

But diving head first into solipsism is basically intellectual masturbation. Although it does help in appreciating The Matrix.

 

[Robin]

Physics is answering more and more of the base questions of reality, neuroscience the same for questions of ethics and morality

I would be interested in hearing examples of base questions of reality answered by physics, or questions of ethics or morality answered by neuroscience.