Does anything exist?

[Steve]

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.

Briggs, Higgs, it's all the same when you are doing philosophy and being logically consistent. Details are for scientists.

 

[LarryS]

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.

A scientific observation/experiment occurs within a simplified and controlled condition - if the theory tests as predicted, we can say the theory is the best explanation for this type or pattern of observations.
As we perform additional experiments in a variety of conditions, we can extend that confidence into additional patterns of observations.
Instead to suggest therefore particleX exists is not science, it’s science and something else.
This is science 101, it’s not hard to understand or controversial.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Ok, my definition is incorrect. That's fair. I'll take the lumps.

So, let's assume that everything is philosophy and that philosophy as a complete concept should not be defended because it's intagible and effectively meaningless.

Now, is all philosophy useless?

 

[Belz...]

A scientific observation/experiment occurs within a simplified and controlled condition - if the theory tests as predicted, we can say the theory is the best explanation for this type or pattern of observations.
As we perform additional experiments in a variety of conditions, we can extend that confidence into additional patterns of observations.
Instead to suggest therefore particleX exists is not science, it’s science and something else.
This is science 101, it’s not hard to understand or controversial.

This is absolutely not science 101. You are making stuff up as you go along.

Answer the question: what does it mean to "exist", outside of what claim (1) says.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, my definition is incorrect. That's fair. I'll take the lumps.

So, let's assume that everything is philosophy and that philosophy as a complete concept should not be defended because it's intagible and effectively meaningless.

Now, is all philosophy useless?

Did you or did you not see and understand the definitions I posted? That's kind of crucial.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Now, is all philosophy useless?

Why are you asking us?

It seems like the philosophy defenders can't actually clearly state what they are defending, which is sort of the point we're making.

Again, I get it. "Philosophy" as a term and word has a lot of baggage on it. That's why we're not getting any real arguments just a reflexive, defensive "OMG how can you say that about philosophy!"

You (and others) aren't even really arguing for philosophy, you're just defending its honor because you think you have to.

But we're not wrong or unreasonable because you (nor anyone else) can successfully articulate exactly what it is defending and why.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But I did articulate what I'm defending.

Is all philosophy useless, yes or no?

I find it amusing that I asked a yes or no question and you are waffling around the point given your sig Joe.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Did you or did you not see and understand the definitions I posted? That's kind of crucial.

I did see and understand them, yes. In looking back through the thread to make sure that I understood what you were referring to I came across an excellent post by Abaddon that pretty much exactly mirrors my opinions regarding this discussion.

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.

I am not defending all philosophy and I'm certainly not defending metaphysics. I am defending discussions on topics such as ethics, logic and politics. These are all useful as a rule even if you get some wacky nonsense discussed regarding them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But I did articulate what I'm defending.

Is all philosophy useless, yes or no?

I find it amusing that I asked a yes or no question and you are waffling around the point given your sig Joe.

You're the second person to try and wring some half-assed gotcha out of my sig line. There's a difference between giving a mathematicians answer and refusing to answer a "When did you stop beating your wife" question.

I can't answer your "Socratic/Trolling they are the same thing" question about philosophy until YOU define it.

Philosophy the term is absolutely useless, this thread has shown that. If you're just going to repeat the same old tired "Well you can't say philosophy is useless, everything is philosophy, you're doing a type of philosophy" routine for the billionth time save us both the trouble.

 

[LarryS]

This is absolutely not science 101. You are making stuff up as you go along.

Answer the question: what does it mean to "exist", outside of what claim (1) says.

Claim (1) is the more accurate description of what science means when it suggests that a particle exists, or a theory is 'true' . . . who knows what claim #2 means, that's my point. Claim #2 is something else, perhaps based on personal experience, intuition or gut feeling, a hunch, wishful thinking, etc.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You're the second person to try and wring some half-assed gotcha out of my sig line. There's a difference between giving a mathematicians answer and refusing to answer a "When did you stop beating your wife" question.

I can't answer your "Socratic/Trolling they are the same thing" question about philosophy until YOU define it.

Philosophy the term is absolutely useless, this thread has shown that. If you're just going to repeat the same old tired "Well you can't say philosophy is useless, everything is philosophy, you're doing a type of philosophy" routine for the billionth time save us both the trouble.

Except that isn't what I'm doing. You keep claiming this is what I'm doing but I'm not. Your strawmanning efforts are pretty obvious Joe.

ETA: That is, I'm not going to claim that you're doing philosophy because everything is philosophy. In fact I've repeatedly stated that this is not only not where I am going but also not what I think and yet you are still insisting that this is what I'm doing despite me having said the exact opposite. Why must you argue disingenuously all the time? Belz... disagrees with me and has given me some (earned) sharp rebukes in the thread, but he isn't lying about what I'm doing. Why are you?

Is all philosophy useless. Yes, or no?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is all philosophy useless. Yes, or no?

*Grabs you by the collar and screams in your face*

NOBODY HAS DEFINED WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS!

Do that and I will answer your question.

But you can't. Because it's a meaningless term.

 

[Scorpion]

*Grabs you by the collar and screams in your face*

NOBODY HAS DEFINED WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS!

Do that and I will answer your question.

But you can't. Because it's a meaningless term.

My definition of philosophy is

Striving to reach understanding by reason alone.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You cannot be serious. There have been numerous definitions provided by various people. After I retracted my definition as erroneously including logic as a necessary part of it Belz mentioned he had provided two definitions.

Here, I'll try again. Philosophy is the intellectual discussion of something using reason, arguments and evidence whether or not there is an objective answer that can be reached (unlike science, which describes the objective reality of the world around us).

For example political philosophy is the creation, promotion and discussion of various ways to govern a country ranging from taxation ideas and ownership of the means of production through to how the taxes raised should be spent, methods of governance, voting etc.

Ethics, which is another branch of philosophy, comprises discussions around the boundaries of actions. For example medical ethics places limitations on what experiments can be run based on how much harm they cause to the experiment subjects versus how useful the results will be.

Is that enough? Can you stop building men of straw now and answer the question?


Incidentally the

*Grabs you by the collar and screams in your face*

NOBODY HAS DEFINED WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS!

is exceptionally rude in a typed medium. Why must you descend into outright hostility and rudeness whenever someone disagrees with you?

 

[JoeMorgue]

ETA: That is, I'm not going to claim that you're doing philosophy because everything is philosophy. In fact I've repeatedly stated that this is not only not where I am going but also not what I think and yet you are still insisting that this is what I'm doing despite me having said the exact opposite. Why must you argue disingenuously all the time? Belz... disagrees with me and has given me some (earned) sharp rebukes in the thread, but he isn't lying about what I'm doing. Why are you?

Because I've laid out my answer with clarity a half dozen time now.

Because every "Defense of Philosophy" discussion we have always turns into this, trolling sealioning.

YOU'RE NOT THE VICTIM HERE.

Here, I'll repeat my total and complete explanation into the thread for the (counts) 4th time now, just so you can ignore it and ask the same question in 5 minutes.

You have a question that needs answering. Any question. Yes even the "gotcha" questions like "Can your cold hard science prove a painting is beautiful" or "Well what if there's a trolley going down the track..." or any of the dozen of "Philosophical" questions which are just cowards ways of asking "Do we have a soul?" without saying it. Any question.

Do you answer it within a framework of gathering evidence in a controlled way, with rules in place to remove variables, falsifiability, repeatability, etc?

Well yes, because if the answer isn't really an answer if it doesn't include those things.

Call that whatever helps you sleep at night. Call the framework science (because that's what it is) or if even the very word offends because you're one of those "It's not science unless it beakers and test-tubes" types you call it dancing the Charleston, I don't care.

So do NOT ask me "sO aRe U saYIng aLL PhilSOPSHOBILITY is uSELess or NOT?" again.

 

[abaddon]

A scientific observation/experiment occurs within a simplified and controlled condition

Wrong.

if the theory tests as predicted, we can say the theory is the best explanation for this type or pattern of observations.

Wrong.

As we perform additional experiments in a variety of conditions, we can extend that confidence into additional patterns of observations.

Wrong.

Instead to suggest therefore particleX exists is not science, it’s science and something else.

Wrong.

This is science 101, it’s not hard to understand or controversial.

Nobody can help your misunderstanding but you. And you have to want it in the first place. Everyone does. Nobody pops out of their mothers loins with full knowledge of anything. Not me, not you, not jeebus, nobody. We all must learn.

Can you?

Because I am starting to wonder about that.

How many times must you be reminded that you have the cart before the horse?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Because I've laid out my answer with clarity a half dozen time now.

Because every "Defense of Philosophy" discussion we have always turns into this, trolling sealioning.

YOU'RE NOT THE VICTIM HERE.

Here, I'll repeat my total and complete explanation into the thread for the (counts) 4th time now, just so you can ignore it and ask the same question in 5 minutes.

You have a question that needs answering. Any question. Yes even the "gotcha" questions like "Can your cold hard science prove a painting is beautiful" or "Well what if there's a trolley going down the track..." or any of the dozen of "Philosophical" questions which are just cowards ways of asking "Do we have a soul?" without saying it. Any question.

Do you answer it within a framework of gathering evidence in a controlled way, with rules in place to remove variables, falsifiability, repeatability, etc?

Well yes, because if the answer isn't really an answer if it doesn't include those things.

Call that whatever helps you sleep at night. Call the framework science (because that's what it is) or if even the very word offends because you're one of those "It's not science unless it beakers and test-tubes" types you call it dancing the Charleston, I don't care.

So do NOT ask me "sO aRe U saYIng aLL PhilSOPSHOBILITY is uSELess or NOT?" again.

If it is possible to do so, yes you do science.

What about things that are extremely difficult or outright impossible to answer objectively such as politics?

Again, you are putting words into my mouth that I am not only not using but that I am outright arguing against. I can understand why this discussion gets you annoyed if indeed you are continually attacked using the obvious nonsensical rubbish that you are attributing to me, but if you actually calmed down and read what I write you would know that I am not attempting to troll you, or sealion you. I have stated what philosophy is and why I think SOME philosophical discussions are worthwhile. I've answered your questions without using any strawmen, and I've even apologised and retracted on occasions where I have been incorrect or have overstepped.

Honestly the obvious anger isn't what is annoying me, more the constant insistence I am doing something I am not.

Can you apply science to ethics? I would argue "no" because there comes a point where the argument is more "how much harm is acceptable" and there is no way to quantify that. This is where philosophical discussion can take over and consensus can be reached. We do not continually jam probes into the brains of chimps even though I'm sure the results would be fascinating and potentially useful.

I would argue that I am indeed the victim. I'm the victim of your constant, repeated attempts to shoehorn what I am actually saying into what you apparently think I'm saying and then screaming at me when I disagree with what you have claimed about me.

You have in this thread claimed I am arguing something I have explicitly argued against, maligned my motives and got defensive when I asked you to stop doing it, and have insinuated that I am somehow trolling you, and that I am a liar for claiming to have been at work during working hours here in the UK. You have never once apologised for your utterly despicable behaviour or your bizarre misreading of what I have said.

Again, I don't have this issue with Belz despite him literally calling something I said stupid.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If it is possible to do so, yes you do science.

What about things that are extremely difficult or outright impossible to answer objectively such as politics?

You see this is always the routine.

"Oh but how can science answer those questions?"

*Shrugs* I dunno. How can philosophy? That question never gets answered, it's always just treated as a given that "science" ends at some point and philosophy just takes over by default but how philosophy answers the question (at all, to say nothing of better than science can) is never answered, it's just yet another thing declared by fiat as "philosophy."

And I still stand by my point. If your "answer" (even for *dramatic pause* subjective question) doesn't include concepts like "evidence" and "falsifiability" then they aren't answers.

"But science can't tell you if a painting is beautiful!" or "Science can't answer ethical questions!" (or some other functional identical gotcha)... okay but neither can philosophy from where I'm standing. Philosophy just says "something" that isn't an answer and pats itself on the back, declaring it an "answer" only because it's using an entirely meaningless definition of the word "answer."

Okay fine, let's hit the "I believe button" and say science can't answer "ethical" questions. (I think that's absolutely wrong, but let's shelf that for the time being)

How does philosophy? And actually give the method it uses.

What "ethical" or "subjective" questions has PHILOSOPHY answered? What is Philosophy's answer to ethics? Or beauty? Or the Trolley Problem? And please note that generating noise about the question isn't anywhere near the same thing as an answer. Please note that organizing and labeling all the not-answers isn't anywhere near the same thing as answer either.

Sure if you by answer you mean "not really an answer" philosophy answers all sorts of stuff.

Again this is what is so frustrating. We're being talked to as if "philosophy" has this track record of actually answering things science can't.

 

[Minoosh]

Please tell me where I went wrong

Beyond the misnaming of the particle, neither statement seems very scientific to me.

I Am Not a Particle Physicist (IANAPP) but one basic flaw is that the statements both seem to be not very good examples of even coherent verbal thinking, much less the far more precise "language" of mathematics.

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

IANAPP but for starters it seems to me (how's that for weasel English?) that the statement would be couched in terms of probabilities. Also, parsing the English (which is but an impoverished proxy for math), I don't find it a very convincing cause-and-effect statement. The particle exists because it aligns so nicely with our observations? Didn't the particle exist before there were people around to make observations?

(2) the Briggs boson exists

That may seem less scientific, but to my mind, it's at pretty much the same level, and I would struggle to explain why, except to say that among real particle physicists, evidence for the existence of the particle might be so overwhelming that a safely analogous statement might be, "Evolution exists" or maybe "evolution happens."

And no matter how much precision you think you can introduce by inserting verbal qualifiers, you will fall short, because the language used to get to the core of these subjects is not English, or Mandarin, or Latin, but mathematics.

I am not putting this as clearly as I'd like; I'm sure there are valid arguments against my position.

I'm a lurker, a piker, a neophyte in this conversation, but not (I think) to the basic argument - it seems like half of all ISF topics boil down to this and rightfully so, IMO.

 

[Belz...]

I did see and understand them, yes. In looking back through the thread to make sure that I understood what you were referring to I came across an excellent post by Abaddon that pretty much exactly mirrors my opinions regarding this discussion.

I am not defending all philosophy and I'm certainly not defending metaphysics. I am defending discussions on topics such as ethics, logic and politics. These are all useful as a rule even if you get some wacky nonsense discussed regarding them.

I think logic predates any sort of philosophy. As for ethics it's just an extension of moral values.