Sorry, what? We need degree level at a bare minimum to discuss philosophy? That's gonna /thread right pronto. I assume you have said philosophy degree? Don't bother saying you have a different science degree; it wouldn't matter.
I was talking about qualifications in science (not philosophy). And what I said was that you need more than just “school” level science to properly appreciate why science is so successful, what it has succeeded in doing, what sort of dedication (and often real brilliance) those achievements needed. However, Darat tells me that in the USA “school” often means something different to what we know as “school” in the UK.
Yeah, that's not what we are talking about, although the converse would apply to you I you really believed that. What's your postgrad Philosophy work again?
Well I did specifically tell you in the previous post that I never attended any philosophy classes. And I added that I did not attend any religious classes either. There's only so much that any of use can decide to study (we can't do everything all at the same time). We have to decide what we think is likely to be useful vs what is not.
No one here is arguing against science, or even suggesting it plays second fiddle. What is being argued is that Philosophy is fine for what it is, but we are hearing this strawman dismissal that sounds like it's from a 12 year old in the back row wearing a Spongebob t-shirt saying "philosophy is stoooooopid, maaaaan".
Actually some people here have been trying to claim that science plays second fiddle. The claim, sometimes made directly and sometimes it's simply implied without being said directly, is that (a) all of science is really just philosophy, (b) science is part of philosophy anyway, (c) science owes it's existence to philosophy, (d) philosophy has identified the correct methods which science must adhere too, (e) science has limits beyond which it cannot go but where philosophy gives us the explanations etc. etc., …. it's stuff like that from philosophy posters in these thread that I and several other here are objecting to.
This sweeping dismissal seems based on the foolish idea that all philosophy is metaphysics. And it's not, full stop. The reason I asked that poster if he ever actually received formal instruction was because he keeps lobbying a strawman version. As I said earlier, the Mickey Mouse intro course I took in college was geared towards logic, critical thinking and evaluation. At the very end, metaphysics were dropped in as kind of a test, where we were expected to use our formally refined thinking to analyze the fringes.
Well, first of all I'm not interested in words like “Metaphysics”. The reason for the sweeping dismissal, is that we are talking here about whether or not philosophy has still got anything to contribute to science when it comes to discovering and explaining the world around us. And for that I think a sweeping dismissal is in order. Does philosophy still have some other role that's important enough and unique enough (ie not something that can just as easily be understood by numerous other subjects, inc. science) to warrant still being taught as a degree subject and a post graduate research subject? Well, I'm not convinced that it does, actually.
The weirdest part is that in my course at least, the curriculum was straight out of a skeptics playbook, right down to dissecting woo.
Again, myself and the others you cite are in no way saying that Philosophy is the real answer, or even an alternative answer. We are saying that the Spongebob arguments are embarrassing on a skeptics forum, and the handwaving of repeated explanations (and strawman and goalposts moving and other fallacious tripe) is so much worse.
Actually, some posters here are in effect saying that philosophy is "the real answer”. And even those who are not doing that explicitly, are still claiming that science has limits beyond which it cannot provide answers, but where philosophy is then the means of obtaining important answers. And I'm disagreeing with that claim.
