Does anything exist?

[Steve]

No, philosophy is the ******* project director, who understands the underlying"why". The technicians only understand the "how"

Philosophy understands nothing. There are people who call themselves philosophers who claim that they understand things that the unwashed masses (and technicians ) cannot. Evidence of this unique understanding is quite lacking.

 

[Belz...]

No, philosophy is the ******* project director, who understands the underlying"why". The technicians only understand the "how"

No, Joe had it right. Philsophy hasn't been part of science for a long time, if ever. Checking to make sure you get the right answer because it's useless otherwise is not a philsophy. It's just pragmatic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so money where mouth is.

Name one thing philosophy answered and the methodology by which it answered it and how we know its answer it the most likely correct one.

And not you don't get to just take credit for things science did because "Science is a part of philosophy."

 

[Belz...]

Philosophy isn't about answering questions, Joe. It's about asking them, and taking credit for the answers found by others.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philosophy isn't about answering questions, Joe. It's about asking them, and taking credit for the answers found by others.

Even that is giving it too much credit.

 

[Thermal]

Okay so money where mouth is.

Name one thing philosophy answered and the methodology by which it answered it and how we know its answer it the most likely correct one.

And not you don't get to just take credit for things science did because "Science is a part of philosophy."

Philosophy taught the ******* scientists how to ******* formally use logic and reasoning, millennia old philosophical constructs.

Full ******* stop.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philosophy taught the ******* scientists how to ******* formally use logic and reasoning, millennia old philosophical constructs.

Full ******* stop.

That's like astrology getting credit for astronomy. In fact it's exactly that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So basically "Philosophy" is just some broad to the point of absurdity, self defined term going through history, looking at any point in which we progressed intellectually and going "I get credit for that because I define what they are doing as myself."

 

[Belz...]

Philosophy taught the ******* scientists how to ******* formally use logic and reasoning, millennia old philosophical constructs.

Come on. "Logic and reasoning" is basically recognising implications. You're still trying to make "philosophy" into "everything".

The reason why science works isn't because it's based on some broad definition of philosophy; it's because it actually works and we went "oh, works is GOOD".

 

[lomiller]

I think one thing that's confusing a lot of those 2-bit philosophers, is that "having a philosophy" (e.g. "I think honesty is preferable") isn't quite the same thing as "doing philosophy" (e.g. "what does it mean to feel?".

It's similar to people saying evolution is "just a theory" yes, the word theory gets used that way colloquially but it isn't what it means and using it that way when discussing an actual scientific theory ranges anywhere from ignorant to outright dishonest. Conflating some personal outlook with logic or epistemology is equally ignorant\dishonest.

This is especially true in a forum dedicated to critical thinking. Understanding WHY we believe something and being able to justify those beliefs in a rational way is the whole point of critical thinking. This in tern a subset of epistemology (the theory of knowledge)

Science is actually built on a logical fallacy. Experiments can not actually prove a hypothesis. If you are really interested in critical thinking you need to come up with a good reason why we should continue to use science (which we should). Alternatively we can just make it a matter of faith that science tells us the truth, but iMO that makes it no better than a religion that purports to give you the truth even though it's underlying logic is flawed.

Philosophy can and does give us all the justification we need for accepting and using science in spite of the logical fallacy at it's core. You could forgo this and accept it as truth, just as you would a religion and it's possible to get most of the right answers anyway. YMMV but I like the Philosophy approach where you justify your beliefs with reason.

 

[Steve]

Philosophy taught the ******* scientists how to ******* formally use logic and reasoning, millennia old philosophical constructs.

Full ******* stop.

Yeah! Before philosophy was invented and taught no human knew how to figure out for themselves how to do anything productive. Any advancements in technology up til then were just blind luck. Where would we be today without philosophers to explain why stone tools needed to be invented.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again nothing here is advancing beyond "Philosophy gets credit because everything is philosophy."

 

[lomiller]

Okay so money where mouth is.

Name one thing philosophy answered and the methodology by which it answered it and how we know its answer it the most likely correct one.

And not you don't get to just take credit for things science did because "Science is a part of philosophy."

Science is an application of philosophy. If you are going to claim Science has made philosophy irrelevant you may as well take the next step and say engineering makes science irrelevant.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Science is an application of philosophy.

As is literarily everything else. We've covered this.

 

[lomiller]

As is literarily everything else. We've covered this.

Have we? Where have you shown that everything is an application of philosophy?

A whole lot of things obviously will be, because one of the things philosophy does is show us how is how to separate justifiable beliefs from those that can't be justified. This still leaves us a lot of unjustifiable beliefs that don't stem from philosophy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Have we? Where have you shown that everything is an application of philosophy?

Then tell me what "isn't" philosophy then.

Or is this the start of a "Who said everything is philosophy? Show me where anyone said that!" routine because I already predicted that like a page ago.

 

[Thermal]

That's like astrology getting credit for astronomy. In fact it's exactly that.

Not remotely, because we still use formal logic and reasoning today, and will continue to. Do you still check your ******* horoscope at breakfast?

 

[Thermal]

Again nothing here is advancing beyond "Philosophy gets credit because everything is philosophy."

Which is you denying any aspect of philosophy that remains practical and useful.

It doesn't matter if you handwave or rename things.

Take away philosophy and we are like lomiller's cavemen bumbling around primitively sharpening rocks.

It's just as relevant and useful today as it was in Plato's time.

 

[Chanakya]

...Science is actually built on a logical fallacy. ...Philosophy can and does give us all the justification we need for accepting and using science in spite of the logical fallacy at it's core

What fallacy?

Experiments can not actually prove a hypothesis.

True. But so what? (I mean, proofs are what you get in closed systems like logic and math, isn't that so? Why would you even look for "proof" in the real world? I don't think I'm getting this.)

If you are really interested in critical thinking you need to come up with a good reason why we should continue to use science (which we should).

I'm no expert at this, but this seems common sense. We do science because it provides us the best working model with which to view, well, everything. In what way is this ...fallacious?

 

[lomiller]

It's just as relevant and useful today as it was in Plato's time.

Philosophy more relevant now than in Plato's time because it's been developed to a much higher state. The development of science, technology and society accelerated greatly though the 1600's - 1800's and one major reason for that is that philosophy developed to a level that allowed us to separate good ideas from bad ones.