Does anything exist?

[Darat]

Scientific findings are always conditional when extended beyong the confines of the observation (scientific method) itself. Here Max Planck is expressing his opinion; perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps he has some logic or reasoning behind it; but here he is not being 'scientific'.

Scorpion didn't say he was - this is the philosophical answer to "Does anything exist".

Granted it's a different answer to the other apparent philosophical answer I got earlier.

These are both apparently the philosophical answer to "Does anything exist?"

1) I exist otherwise I couldn't be pondering the question. Therefor something exists.

2) As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.​

These answers are different.

How do I determine which is the correct philosophical answer?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I am philosophy and I get to define what science THE ACTUAL ONLY USEFUL METHODOLOGY THAT EXISTS gets and doesn't get to say because I say so because I'M PHILOSOPHY (Gives itself a round of applause.)"

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Edited by xjx388: 

<SNIP>Removed moderated content

Oh yes, I remember. I stated a few useful branches of philosophy and stated that meaningless twaddle like solipsism doesn't render useful philosophy useless. You ignored me and continued to scream your own beliefs and accused the "pro philosophy" side as just listing useful things and claiming they were philosophy. Despite the useful things being listed being philosophy. Then you insulted me some more and threw another tantrum.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Philosophy is the discipline of thinking about things and applying logic and evidence to them. Similar to science, except that science can only be applied to the objective whereas philosophy can also be used to determine the best cause in the subjective such as political discussions.

Again, I don't disagree that there is useless philosophy. My argument is not and has never been that all philosophy is useful or even worthwhile, just that the reverse is equally not true.

Even if someone wants to say that Scoprion is doing philosophy then I would absolutely be in lockstep behind you in saying that the "philosophy" he is doing is at best mildly diverting nonsense. I don't have to accept that his arguments are useful just because I think that Hobbes' were.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Philosophy is the discipline of thinking about things and applying logic and evidence to them.

And to answer Joe more directly, the "standard" is logical consistency.

 

[Belz...]

And to answer Joe more directly, the "standard" is logical consistency.

Is it? Because I was informed earlier that "logic" is one branch of philosophy. If it has to be logical, then it's not a branch, it's a requisite.

 

[LarryS]

That doesn't make any sense.

Can you name a single instance of a scientific finding that is beyond the confines of the scientific method?

That’s not what I wrote. What I’ve said multiple times already, 2 example claims:

(1) the Briggs boson exists as it explains observations, iow the existence of the particle is consistent with our model

(2) the Briggs boson exists

Claim #1 is scientific
Claim #2 is science plus something else, perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps philosophy (inference etc), perhaps an imbedded belief.

Claim #1 says existence of particle is consistent with our model, but is conditional when applied outside of observation.

 

[abaddon]

Is it? Because I was informed earlier that "logic" is one branch of philosophy. If it has to be logical, then it's not a branch, it's a requisite.

One of those awkward parts that philosophobabblers attempt to brush under the rug. They know full well the circular nature of such an approach.

 

[abaddon]

That’s not what I wrote. What I’ve said multiple times already, 2 example claims:

(1) the Briggs boson exists as it explains observations, iow the existence of the particle is consistent with our model

(2) the Briggs boson exists

Claim #1 is scientific
Claim #2 is science plus something else, perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps philosophy (inference etc), perhaps an imbedded belief.

Claim #1 says existence of particle is consistent with our model, but is conditional when applied outside of observation.

Amusing how you somehow think you know how science works and get it entirely wrong.

 

[Darat]

No, he isn't. I thought we went through this already?

Oh yes, I remember. I stated a few useful branches of philosophy and stated that meaningless twaddle like solipsism doesn't render useful philosophy useless. You ignored me and continued to scream your own beliefs and accused the "pro philosophy" side as just listing useful things and claiming they were philosophy. Despite the useful things being listed being philosophy. Then you insulted me some more and threw another tantrum.

How do I determine which is the correct philosophical answer?

 

[Darat]

And to answer Joe more directly, the "standard" is logical consistency.

It has been claimed that theology is philosophy therefore logical consistency can not be a test as to what is philosophy or not.

 

[LarryS]

Amusing how you somehow think you know how science works and get it entirely wrong.

Please tell me where I went wrong

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

But theologies can be logically consistent. It doesn't matter that some or even most might not be.


Science doesn't become non-science just because some science supporters have misunderstandings of science.

 

[abaddon]

Please tell me where I went wrong

You did it back to front. You started with a conclusion and went looking for evidence to support it. That is backwards.

 

[Darat]

But theologies can be logically consistent. It doesn't matter that some or even most might not be.

…

So not all theology is philosophy?

It seems to me you are saying if something isn’t logically consistent it can’t be philosophy?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philosophy is the discipline of thinking about things and applying logic and evidence to them.

And to answer Joe more directly, the "standard" is logical consistency.

*Buzzer* Oh I'm sorry wrong answer, you do not win the Christmas Ham.

Others have already covered this but the flaw in this answer is so obvious I'm a little vaguely insulted people tried it so clumsily.

"Logic" is one of the things that philosophy has to, simply has to, SIMPLY IT MUST HAPPEN I SAY!, get credit for discovering. It therefore can't be a defining factor in it.

I'm more and more getting the same vibe I get from the God people, the feeling people are getting more and more frustrated with me as they are slowly realizing that haven't put nearly as much thought into some important part of their internal identities as they convinced themselves they did, and it's somehow my fault that they missed obvious problems with the concept.

People have obviously put so much credence to "Well... it's philosophy! We call all the great thinker philosophers! The word has such a pedigree and so much history! I mean it can't be a meaningless term it just can't be!"

That's why I said before, multiple times, that nobody here is really defending "Philosophy" they are defending some vague concept of the reputation of the idea of philosophy.

I reject the "Logic" answer and ask again. How do you tell what is and isn't philosophy?

 

[Belz...]

That’s not what I wrote. What I’ve said multiple times already, 2 example claims:

(1) the Briggs boson exists as it explains observations, iow the existence of the particle is consistent with our model

(2) the Briggs boson exists

Claim #1 is scientific
Claim #2 is science plus something else, perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps philosophy (inference etc), perhaps an imbedded belief.

Claim #1 says existence of particle is consistent with our model, but is conditional when applied outside of observation.

First of all you might want to get the name of the particle right if you want to have at least a sliver of respect left.

Second, there is no distinction between the two claims. You have not established any difference, merely claimed that it is there.

So tell me: what does it mean to "exist", outside of what claim (1) says.

 

[Belz...]

But theologies can be logically consistent. It doesn't matter that some or even most might not be.

Of course it matters, because including theology into philosophy means that philosophy need not be logically consistent.

You're all putting yourself into traps with your definition games.

Philosophy is the discipline of thinking about things and applying logic and evidence to them.

I'm sorry, you don't get to make up your own definition of philosophy. I've provided two definitions already, but not only were they entirely ignored, no one has bothered quoting an actual source for an alternative definition.

You're all over the place, the lot of you.

 

[abaddon]

First of all you might want to get the name of the particle right if you want to have at least a sliver of respect left.

Second, there is no distinction between the two claims. You have not established any difference, merely claimed that it is there.

So tell me: what does it mean to "exist", outside of what claim (1) says.

Oh. Maybe I was being too charitable. I thought he was referring to a hypothetical particle.

Do you really think he meant Higgs?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Science can, nay is graciously allowed to by its master Philosophy, tell if you if a concept repeatedly explains observable phenomenon under both controlled and real-world conditions, fits in with and explains our broader view of the universe, can effectively and reliably predict future events, and expand our general information of the universe.... but only.... *dramatic pause* PHILOSOPHY *pause while Greek Chorus dies down* can tell us if something is real!" is the absolute worst kind of distinction without difference word games.

And that's all 99% of this is. Science can give us data, but only Philosophy can tell us DA TWOOF! Science can answer the hows, but we Philosophy to tell us the whys! Science gives us information but philosophizers are the ones that give us knowledge! And a billion different other variations.

It would be bad enough if philosophy was presented as some equal to science, but we aren't even given that. Philosophy is some grander concept that sits above science, declaring to it what lanes to stay in and what it is and isn't allowed to make declarative statements on as if it, and not science, was the methodology that's been at the core of literally every advancement in every sphere of information about how the world actually works and needs to be taken down a peg.*

It's just an overly vague to the point of uselessness concept that's declared itself the overseeing of everything, taking credit for things other people do and giving an undeservered air of legitimacy to woo and bad thinking.

*That "Taking down a peg* thing. I'm going to put a pin in that because fair chance I'm going to have to return to it to counter some trite "science is full of people who aren't as smart as they think they are" crap.