Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

It is a serious question. You treat it like a charicture, a freaking cartoon stereotype. Is your exposure more than superficial?

I enjoy the superficial. Reality is superficial, in the sense that it has no hidden meaning or morality. It just is.

Philosophy can search for "answers" all it wants, but in the end they remain subjective and arbitrary. The word "deep", in contrast to "superficial", often pops up, but when you're dealing with fictions, depth is really illusory.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The tools used to evaluate evidence properly come directly from philosophy, eg logic and epistemology.

*Head desk* Is getting drunk because people keep making the same argument over and over philosophy or science. God forbid I get it wrong.

You describe science, and the call it philosophy because science isn't allowed to discover itself but philosophy is.

 

[Belz...]

I reject evidence all the time. Some evidence deserves to be rejected. Pseudo-science happens because people reject the wrong pieces of evidence. The tools used to evaluate evidence properly come directly from philosophy, eg logic and epistemology.

You can repeat this a thousand times and it's still not true. The core problem with pseudo-science isn't the "wrong" evidence (which is, of course, nonsense), but that evidence is overwhelmed by ideology. And the source of science is methodology, not philosophy. You've proven it by dodging my request about their relationship.

 

[Darat]

I enjoy the superficial. Reality is superficial, in the sense that it has no hidden meaning or morality. It just is.

Philosophy can search for "answers" all it wants, but in the end they remain subjective and arbitrary. The word "deep", in contrast to "superficial", often pops up, but when you're dealing with fictions, depth is really illusory.

We see this in arguments about religious teachings and doctrines, that “real theology” is more sophisticated or deeper than what we would argue here. Yet no one ever seems to be able to put up these arguments that prove god is good, or god is love or god is x,y and z.

 

[Thermal]

What's your point, though? I've had a psychology course where the teacher promoted the idea of subliminal ads. Interesting, though not based on actual reality.

The larger question here is whether what is usually known as philosophy has any use aside from mental masturbation (which can be fun, but not very useful).

Holup: what I (and other posters, and pur courses and online sources etc) usually know as philosophy is at violent odds with what you and Mr Morgue usually know it as. To which are you referring?

 

[lomiller]

It's literally orthogonal to science.

Logic is not orthogonal to science
Epistemology is not orthogonal to science
Ethics are may be unrelated so science in many cases but certainly not all.

The only branch of philosophy that you can argue is "orthogonal to science" is metaphysics, but that happens because Natural Philosophy was split into things that can be investigated by science, and things that can't which we now call metaphysics. So, while mutually exclusive, science and metaphysics are closely related, and indeed it isn't unusual for scientists to explore metaphysical questions like "what caused the big bang" or "what's outside the visible universe"

 

[Belz...]

Holup: what I (and other posters, and pur courses and online sources etc) usually know as philosophy is at violent odds with what you and Mr Morgue usually know it as. To which are you referring?

As I've said before, I'm refering to the ACTUAL definition of philosophy, not the broadened, absurdist one peddled by the defenders of sophistry in this thread and elsewhere. I've provided two examples of this earlier today.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I reject evidence all the time. Some evidence deserves to be rejected. Pseudo-science happens because people reject the wrong pieces of evidence. The tools used to evaluate evidence properly come directly from philosophy, eg logic and epistemology.

Since the argument "you don't really know philosophy" keeps getting thrown around, let me do the opposite: in the above you just prove you don't even understand what "evidence" MEANS. So YOU shouldn't be having this conversation. Or really any conversation where you don't even understand WTH the thing you're arguing MEANS.

To wit:

"Evidence" in logic, which is to say both for science and philosophy, is that which supports a conclusion being true or false. It doesn't mean any random fact being presented. To be "evidence" at all, it needs to be a part of a SOUND INFERENCE. Otherwise it's not "evidence" at all.

The whole faffing around with what's the right or wrong evidence to discard, is just dumb blah-blah based on not even understanding what it means.

 

[Belz...]

Logic is not orthogonal to science

It also has little to do with philosophy, despite the claims to the contrary. Logic is a fundamental, necessary truth. A and ~A can't be true at the same time. That is way beyond philosophy, although philosophy uses logic.

 

[Belz...]

"Evidence" in logic, which is to say both for science and philosophy, is that which supports a conclusion being true or false. It doesn't mean any random fact being presented. To be "evidence" at all, it needs to be a part of a SOUND INFERENCE. Otherwise it's not "evidence" at all.

aH bUT yOu SaiD "Should" sO yOU're DoiNG pHIlosOPhy!

 

[JoeMorgue]

aH bUT yOu SaiD "Should" sO yOU're DoiNG pHIlosOPhy!

"sCienCe caN onLY anSWEr the hOw neVEr tHE WHy!"

 

[lomiller]

You can repeat this a thousand times and it's still not true. The core problem with pseudo-science isn't the "wrong" evidence (which is, of course, nonsense), but that evidence is overwhelmed by ideology. And the source of science is methodology, not philosophy. You've proven it by dodging my request about their relationship.

Ideology may or may not play a role, I've seen it both ways. Most of those promoting pseudo-science are actually trying to follow scientific methods, they just have their own "facts" and their own incorrect opinions on what constitutes evidence. Plugging bad evidence into good methodology will still give you the wrong answer. This is what makes it so difficult to convince them they are wrong.

What's required to combat pseudoscience isn't a better science education it's a better education in logic and understanding of how we know things. While people who lean science tend to pick some of this up along the way, they are actually subjects than fall under philosophy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"You can do science wrong" doesn't change anything anyone is saying.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'd like to return to previous point.

"Science" doesn't get credit for things like basic logic and reason because science uses them science can't prove itself.

Then why does Philosophy? Why does philosophy get to create it's own internal standards?

 

[Thermal]

I'd like to return to previous point.

"Science" doesn't get credit for things like basic logic and reason because science uses them science can't prove itself.

Then why does Philosophy? Why does philosophy get to create it's own internal standards?

Because philosophy codified them. Formalized them. Made them a study that has widespread application. That's the heading where those kinds of formal thinking are structured.

Science uses them. Great, that's what they are for.

Science and Phil are not different teams, or different ends of the spectrum. They are more like a pair of interlocking circles in a Venn diagram with more intersection than not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because philosophy codified them

How? Tell me the process. What methods did it use. What failsafes did it apply? How did it test it to see if it worked?

 

[Belz...]

Most of those promoting pseudo-science are actually trying to follow scientific methods

No, that's just not true. More often than not they run away from it.

What's required to combat pseudoscience isn't a better science education it's a better education in logic and understanding of how we know things.

As we've seen here, logic can become a bit of a trap. For instance one can have valid but unsound logic. If you don't understand the science properly then your facts will be wrong regardless of your logic. That's not even mentioning fallacies.

 

[Belz...]

Because philosophy codified them. Formalized them.

That's what's being discussed, so you can't just affirm this.

The great philosophers of classical Greece didn't manage to come up with modern science, for instance, for all their thinking. Neither did Nietschze (or however you write his stupid name) or Descartes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Neither did Nietschze (or however you write his stupid name...

Here you go https://makeagif.com/gif/nietzsche-will-end-you-rfqrOr

(Warning contains a dirty word)

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're in loop.

"Science didn't invent logic and reason and imperical evidence! Philosophy did!"
"How? How did Philosophy invent those things for science to use?"
Silence.

A bunch of old bored white guys with servants and/or slaves do all the work so they could just sit around "thinking" all day is not a process.