Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

No, it's not "everything". It's a specific part of thinking. Specific, and restricted.

Well, make up your mind. Either it's restricted or it's a "main" component of what we think, so much so that it includes moral, reason and pretty much everything else.

I can think about all sorts of things without bringing philosophy into it.

So can I -- like science.

Theres a smoking hot little package in a thong bikini a few feet from where I'm working (I love beach towns in the summer).

Since when do Amazon put your parcels in a th-- oooohhh!

 

[Chanakya]

There you go againl: calling everything "philosophy"...

Again, philosophy is everything...

No, it's not "everything". It's a specific part of thinking. ...

...Either it's restricted or it's a "main" component of what we think, so much so that it includes moral, reason and pretty much everything else. ...

That's actually an interesting question: Is philosophy a word that's used for so many things that it's no longer useful as a word, as a label?

I don't know, "Science" is a pretty broad word too. It covers all kinds of subjects. But there's a common thread connecting them, that all of these disciplines follow, more or less, the scientific method.

How does that work with Philosophy? Someone who's actually closely familiar with the various disciplines within philosophy -- which I'm not -- might answer this. What links all the branches of philosophy, what's common to all of those "ogy"s that comprise philosophy? Other than history, that is?

I mean, this question is probably one that will admit of a clear Yes/No answer. If, like science, there's some common element there, then using the word "Philosophy" to denote all of them is useful, certainly. Otherwise, if all that they have in common is history, then I guess there'd be merit to the argument that the term is much too broad.

 

[IanS]

I highlighted a few segments of your post - and I hope you can see you're all over the place.

Dear me, honestly ! ... Of Course none of that was "all over the place" ... every one of those sentences was 100 % consistent with all of the others. And all of it is 100% consistent with every part of every explanation that I've given to you. Either you cannot read, or you do not understand English, or else you your confirmation bias is persuading you to falsely see things which are simply not there!

Having said that I am in agreement with you in that I share the same philosophy as you (and Belz) . . . but that's not the point . . . the point is it's a philosophy.
A scientist can be a devout catholic, agnostic or atheist, a Druid, dualist or monist.

You are most definitely NOT "with me" ... you and I have had exactly this same conversation here many times before (for years!), and what is very clear from all of that, is that in fact it is YOU who is "all over the place"; where throughout all those threads you have repeatedly said that you do not believe things are real, but that you accept that they probably are real!

A scientist could believe in ghosts or that we live in a simulation, or believe reality is all a dream of some furry god.
Granted our beliefs can and will limit the type and greatness of any science we do - but anyone of any beliefs can do science.

That's yet another misrepresented distortion from you! What I was pointing out is that you have hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world, and with numbers that big you can inneviatbly find a few who will say and do almost anything. But on the whole, scientists are far more consistent and credible in what they say, than any other group in human society ... they are vastly more trustworthy when it comes to understanding the nature of what we percieve as the reality of our existence. They are vastly less susceptible to believing in ghosts, simulations, gods or any other woo ... that's the actual point!

And no not "anyone can do science"; not if we are talking about genuine published research in the real main journals such as JACS & Phys Rev. By no means can "anyone" just publish actual science research like that. The entry qualification is that what you submit as your research MUST be genuinely new or an important addition or explanation, and it must pass peer review from acknowledged experts in that precise area of study ... not just "anyone" will be able to meet that requirement ... if you are talking about questioning "reality" (which is entirely what you have been doing in all these threads") then "anyone" will not be able to simply publish claims like that, unless they can back it up with credible evidence (that includes a mathematical explanation) ... you will search in vain for papers claiming to show that reality does not or may not actually exist, but thats' not because the journals refuse to publish anything like that ... it's entirely because there is NO credible evidence or credible mathematical/quantum argument that implies our universe, objects & events, have no actual existence ... it's not in the genuine science papers because it's not remotely credible!

Even the great Sir Isaac Newton left some things for God - only to have another scientist a few decades later say 'hold my beer' that not be God that be science.
If you reread your post you can see where you are referring to science, and where you are referring to your beliefs.

Dear oh Lord, save us all from this crap! Look ... Isaac Newton was a hell of a long time ago. His contribution was very important, but like everyone else in his time, he believed in the truth of a lot of untrue silly religious and mystical things.

As far as science vs beliefs are concerned - in the end it's all a matter of what any of us "believe". But the difference is whether or not you can justify your beliefs in terms of genuine scientifically valid evidence and explanation ... that, again!, is the point of stressing what is actually published in real core science journals. My "beliefs"? I believe that genuine published science is our best guide ... it's a belief based on all known tested evidence, tested explanation, and repeatable demonstration of almost everything in the world around us ... there is almost no part of human life that those scientific discoveries and their consequences has not touched in a very major way (our daily lives are all drowning in the success and accuracy of science) ... but it's still a "belief" in the sense that we accept that the most logical, honest and reasoned position is to accept that the established science is probably correct (whereas other non-scientific claims are probably NOT correct).

 

[IanS]

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.

You are becoming absurd.

From it's early beginning's with people like Galileo & our modern understanding of science (as distinct from what we can see now as early scientific ideas when we look back at what some philosophers were trying to do from circa 500BC), it slowly became apparent to everyone that science was significantly different from philosophy, in fact it is fundamentally different.

Just because scientists have to think carefully about what they do, that does not make it philosophy. That would yet again be trying to claim that all thinking is philosophy, and that position cannot be credibly maintained (go, on - try it!). And just because in the 2500 years before modern science, people calling themselves "Philosophers" were (along with religious leaders) the people in any society who were the academic thinkers and intellectuals of the time, that does mean that science owes its birth/formation/existence to "philosophy" ... that again is an obvious fallacy, and really also a dishonest one (go on, by all means try to make that erroneous claim as well if you want).

If you have enough qualifications to study (for example) for a 1st degrees in one of the core sciences, then you will be shown into the science dept of the university - you will definitely NOT be shown into the philosophy dep't! You will get lectures in science (not general science, thats another kettle of fish entirely ... but core science such as physics, chemistry, biology), and you will be given a reading list of degree level science books ... not any philosophy books or any lectures from philosophers! The two subjects are massively different. If you end up lecturing physics or chemistry, then you will be paid as a scientist in the physics dept or the chemistry dept ... you will not be employed or paid to lecture philosophy in the the philosophy dept.

 

[Belz...]

That's actually an interesting question: Is philosophy a word that's used for so many things that it's no longer useful as a word, as a label?

That's because of how some people use it. The actual definition is fine.

I don't know, "Science" is a pretty broad word too. It covers all kinds of subjects.

But a specific type of methodology.

 

[IanS]

If you limit to mundane factual conclusions, logic and reasoning win out for providing answers. That's philosophy's department. Science itself just sits there dumbly till someone with a working philosophy employs it. Science is a tool. The philosopher is the tradesman who knows what to do with it.

What?? ... You think that what you would claim to be your "logic & reasoning" "wins out" even when science discovers and explains something that disagrees with what you believed to be your good philosophical "logic & reasoning"???

Who decided that your "logic & reasoning" were sound and correct?

What happened when science came along, was that we discovered that the so-called "logic & reasoning" of past philosophers was hopelessly bad. Half the time it was simply just plain wrong, and the other half of the time it was woefully inadequate! That's precisely why science turned out to be vastly superior.

Posts here now seem to have turned into a battle between science vs philosophy. But that battle was over long ago. And philosophy has been completely eclipsed. So far the score for genuine discoveries and proper detailed explanations is science a trillion different things vs philosophy precisely zero!

 

[lomiller]

Not really, though. There is a philosophy behind the methodology and the "why we should do science", but it's mainly values and what-works-ism. The philosophy that we discuss here so often has nothing to do with that; hence why we should have two terms.

We discuss philosophy here all the time, often without knowing it. Logic is a branch of philosophy so any time we evaluate someone's reasoning and either accept it or decide they are committing a logical fallacy we are practicing philosophy.

Theology is another branch of philosophy, though not one that particularly interests me, so every time we discuss the nature of or even the existence or non-existence of god we are practicing philosophy.

Theory of knowledge is another branch of philosophy, so every time we discuss how we knowing things or how we justify our beliefs we are practicing philosophy. The skillset involved with practicing critical thinking comes entirely from philosophy. Even skepticism itself, the overarching theme of this entire message board, comes from philosophy via the method of doubt.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I told you we get to "I listen to science until it tells me things I don't want to hear" and stall out there.

 

[Chanakya]

That's because of how some people use it. The actual definition is fine.

But that was the sum total of your argument, as presented in that part of your discussion.

I did think there might be merit in it, if it can be shown that there is no common thread running through the different branches of philosophy other than that they historically happened to develop under that umbrella term (unlike science, which, while also very broad, nevertheless does that common thread in terms of the scientific method).

If the very breadth of the term "philosophy" is, like you're now saying, fine, then I don't see how you can find fault with others using that same breadth to show how some elements are very useful to us (while some others may not be).

But a specific type of methodology.

Like I said myself, yes. Agreed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We discuss philosophy here all the time, often without knowing it.

Am I going to have to say "Only because Philosophy declares itself as encompassing everything" again?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"But you are doing a type of philosophy!" (Said with what I can only assume is the same smug expression a mother would use when telling her child that the ice cream he has been eating was really low fat frozen yogurt.)

 

[lomiller]

Would you expand on that? I had to look that up, and apparently "affirming the consequent" amounts to assuming or claiming "If A then B", when the valid claim would be "If B then A". At least that's what the Wikipedia entry says. In what way is science based on this kind of a fallacy?

I think I should have added that science is framed in such a way as to avoid committing the fallacy.


Borrowing the example from the wiki page:

"(e.g., "If the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark,") and invalidly inferring its converse ("The room is dark, so the lamp is broken,") even though the converse may not be true. This arises when a consequent ("the room would be dark") has more than one other possible antecedents (for example, "the lamp is not plugged in" or "the lamp is in working order, but is switched off"). "​

The scientific method does exactly this. We create model, use the model to make predictions then make observations to test those predictions. Ie we observe that the room is dark and say this is evidence the lamp is broken. The problem is there is no end to the alternative explanations for why the room is dark, some of which are completely untestable. The observation that the room is dark can therefor never prove the lamp is broken.


Science gets around this problem by discarding notions of proof and truth, and replaced them with evidence and likelihood. Failure to do so means you are guilty of the aforementioned logical fallacy. IOW any claim that science has, or ever can give us proof of anything or reveal the "true nature" of the universe is fallacious. It can't do this, but it doesn't really have to. We use science because it gives us useful results not because it gives proof or truth.

This seems to make some people insecure because theologians claim to provide proof and truth, and these people want to counter that with "scientific truth". In doing so they commit similar logic errors as theologians and elevate science into something resembling a religion instead of a tool for finding useful models like it's supposed to be.

 

[abaddon]

Just my opinion.

The 4 main areas of philosophy are

A: Epistemology. Basically "How do you know?". Skepticism is a sub-branch of this for example. Science uses it extensively.

B: Ethics. No problems there. Science intersects with ethics all the time. We could create a human/chimp hybrid, but should we? And so forth.

C: Logic. Well, obviously. Law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle. I doubt anyone would argue with the utility of logic.

D: Metaphysics. Right. This is the toilet where all the useless junk philosophy gets thrown. The title of this thread, "Does anything exist?" is metaphysics. This is where all the pointless navel gazing crap lives. Nobody would notice if it was dispensed with completely.

Just my 0.02c.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The whole idea that basic curiosity needs a whole methodology to explain and therefore get credit for it is silly.

Neither is "philosophy" some methodology that ensures we ask "the right question" or ask questions "the right way" or any other such frippery. The whole idea that any methodology is sitting around waiting for "philosophy" to ask its questions for it is insulting.

There's 2 things and only 2 things.

1. Questions answered within a framework of meaningful standards put in place to increase your chances of getting a correct answer.
2. ********.

There's no 3rd category and I'm 100% happy calling everything in category 1 "science" so....

 

[Darat]

...snip...

This seems to make some people insecure because theologians claim to provide proof and truth, and these people want to counter that with "scientific truth". In doing so they commit similar logic errors as theologians and elevate science into something resembling a religion instead of a tool for finding useful models like it's supposed to be.

Theologians aren't philosophers (of course some theologians may also be philosophers).

This is an argument about philosophy's ability to answer questions.

Given that, what is the philosophical answer to "Does anything exist?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

D: Metaphysics. Right. This is the toilet where all the useless junk philosophy gets thrown. The title of this thread, "Does anything exist?" is metaphysics. This is where all the pointless navel gazing crap lives. Nobody would notice if it was dispensed with completely.

But that's my issue. All philosophy is metaphysics (or all philosophy is solipsism as I've put in the past.)

Yeah "Does anything exist" is metaphysical nonsense. But if you go "Are you a materialist or a dualist" or "the hard problem of consciousness" or say the word "qualia" and all of sudden is real serious philosophy even though it's the exact same question.

The difference between "philosophy" and "bunk" (or whatever distinction) is always a matter of tone and pompousness, never the actual core meat of the intellectual question.

Jabba didn't say anything stupider than what I could find in any 101 Philosophy intro textbook.

 

[Chanakya]

I think I should have added that science is framed in such a way as to avoid committing the fallacy.

Borrowing the example from the wiki page:

"(e.g., "If the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark,") and invalidly inferring its converse ("The room is dark, so the lamp is broken,") even though the converse may not be true. This arises when a consequent ("the room would be dark") has more than one other possible antecedents (for example, "the lamp is not plugged in" or "the lamp is in working order, but is switched off"). "​

The scientific method does exactly this. We create model, use the model to make predictions then make observations to test those predictions. Ie we observe that the room is dark and say this is evidence the lamp is broken. The problem is there is no end to the alternative explanations for why the room is dark, some of which are completely untestable. The observation that the room is dark can therefor never prove the lamp is broken.


Science gets around this problem by discarding notions of proof and truth, and replaced them with evidence and likelihood. Failure to do so means you are guilty of the aforementioned logical fallacy. IOW any claim that science has, or ever can give us proof of anything or reveal the "true nature" of the universe is fallacious. It can't do this, but it doesn't really have to. We use science because it gives us useful results not because it gives proof or truth.

Fair enough. Agreed.

In that article I'd referenced earlier, in my post that you've quoted from, they go further and pronounce that this is actually is a fallacy; and they do that by invoking what appeared to me to be a strawman.

Agreed, we use science because, as you say, it gives us useful results and not because it gives proof or truth.

This seems to make some people insecure because theologians claim to provide proof and truth, and these people want to counter that with "scientific truth". In doing so they commit similar logic errors as theologians and elevate science into something resembling a religion instead of a tool for finding useful models like it's supposed to be.

I've usually found that kind of error committed by those who're trying to deride science or those who are trying to work up a God of the Gaps. But regardless, you're right, an astonishingly large number of people, well educated people, often do commit this error. At least that has been my own experience IRL.

 

[lomiller]

Because also used reasoning and methodologies before anyone ever "formalised" it. I guess that means science is older than philosophy.

Rigorous observational testing is something of a newcomer and our understanding or at least our technological growth was stifled until we included it.

But who cares? Science works to find objective answers

Not without the tools provided by philosophy it doesn't. If you don't use those tools correctly the result is pseudo-science.

 

[Belz...]

We discuss philosophy here all the time, often without knowing it. Logic is a branch of philosophy so any time we evaluate someone's reasoning and either accept it or decide they are committing a logical fallacy we are practicing philosophy.

Theology is another branch of philosophy, though not one that particularly interests me, so every time we discuss the nature of or even the existence or non-existence of god we are practicing philosophy.

Theory of knowledge is another branch of philosophy, so every time we discuss how we knowing things or how we justify our beliefs we are practicing philosophy. The skillset involved with practicing critical thinking comes entirely from philosophy. Even skepticism itself, the overarching theme of this entire message board, comes from philosophy via the method of doubt.

Again, if you make "philosophy" to mean "all thinking", then it ceases to have any meaning because, as noted before, we already have a word for that: thinking.

According to Britannica.com:

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

On Wikipedia:

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language

So in fact it isn't "all thinking". It's specific forms and purposes of thinking. Science, you'll notice, doesn't consider fundamental dimensions or any of that nonsense. It tests reality.

 

[Belz...]

Rigorous observational testing is something of a newcomer and our understanding or at least our technological growth was stifled until we included it.

People who invented the wheel or developed means to make fire used some of the same methodologies that science used, and yet I'm sure they didn't have to ponder the "real" nature of the universe to do so.

Not without the tools provided by philosophy it doesn't. If you don't use those tools correctly the result is pseudo-science.

That's a load of crock. Pseudo-science is mostly driven by philosophical claptrap without empirical foundations. So it sounds more like the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

Tell me: what part of science is DOING philosophy?