Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

As far as I know - most philospphy degree students are taught simplified elements of Logic ... whereas it's the Maths department and maths students that are usually taught the more rigorous more in-depth element of what comes under the mathematics headling of "Logic".

I wasn't even taught logic in philo class. That was in math class, and quite... er... logically so. Math and Boole have more and common than either of them and philoosphy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And that's what I've been saying this entire thread.

We're not arguing about philosophy. We're arguing about the much vaguer idea/reputation of philosophy.

That's why on the rare occasions we can nail the Jell-o to the wall and get a solid answer as to what philosophy is... its sounds an awful lot like other things.

Philosophy isn't a discipline or a topic... it's a persona. I've been saying that for years.

 

[Thermal]

Well, I hope so, otherwise you're left arguing absurdities. You can't possibly say that Y is a requirement for X and also a form of X. It's just illogical (another beautiful demonstration that logic isn't part of philosophy).

And that's why the argument isn't sound. X is not a requisite of Y; X is a product of Y. Logic is a product of philosophy, not a requisite.

Oh, here comes that fringe reset! You're back at arguing that philosophy is all thinking even though we were assured that this wasn't the argument.

That's by no means all of thinking.

I've addressed those answers already. You can't say with a shred of honesty that I haven't.

You did. But handwaving or renaming the parts you like isn't qualitatively adressing the argument.

And the problem with that is that "academia", like "philsophy", is deliberately made vague. Meanwhile we have clear definitions of philosophy that are continued to be ignored.

Then it follows that a PhD in any discipline except philosophy is meaningless?

 

[LarryS]

See what I mean? I just gave you a perfectly simple way to understand what I'm saying, and you hand-waved it away.

You're not interested in an actual definition for the terms you use, nor are you interested in knowing what you're talking about. That's philosophy: mental masturbation without an actual goal, or actual results.

I'm not interested in a dictionary definition or doing your work for you when I have you to explain what you mean. But agreed you are under no obligation to do so.
The definition of 'observation' is not necessary to do science as it is not necessary to define observations to test hypothesies.
However, you've also declared that science can also test for what is real - because observable = being real - which is a more extaordinary claim.

 

[Belz...]

And that's why the argument isn't sound. X is not a requisite of Y; X is a product of Y. Logic is a product of philosophy, not a requisite.

Except that we've been told in this very thread that philosophy USES logic. And I've also argued that boolean algebra, which is all logic really is, is WAY too basic and fundamental to be called a sort of philosophy.

Do you really think that "X and ~X cannot be both true" is philosophy?

That's by no means all of thinking.

And you're again missing the point.

But handwaving or renaming the parts you like isn't qualitatively adressing the argument.

If anyone's been twisting words or using hand-waving here it's the philo-philes. I've explained, more than once, including above, why logic cannot be called a part of philosophy. I've gotten crickets in response except for an appeal to vague authority.

Then it follows that a PhD in any discipline except philosophy is meaningless?

...what? What the **** are you babbling about now?

 

[Belz...]

I'm not interested in a dictionary definition

Well that sucks for you because I'm using the dictionary one.

or doing your work for you when I have you to explain what you mean.

What do you mean by "mean"?

The definition of 'observation' is not necessary to do science as it is not necessary to define observations to test hypothesies.

Is English your first language? That is absolutely not what I said.

However, you've also declared that science can also test for what is real - because observable = being real - which is a more extaordinary claim.

It's not a claim. It's a DEFINITION. You've admitted that you have no idea what "real" means. What's wrong with the one I provided?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ah yes we've the reached the point where "doing philosophy" and "trolling" become indistinguishable.

People always remind us that the Greeks gave us Socrates and always forget that they killed him for being annoying.

 

[Belz...]

Ah yes we've the reached the point where "doing philosophy" and "trolling" become indistinguishable.

People always remind us that the Greeks gave us Socrates and always forget that they killed him for being annoying.

Yeah, Plato learned that in order to avoid the poison you have to lace your philosophy with some nationalistic jingoism.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not interested in a dictionary definition or doing your work for you when I have you to explain what you mean. But agreed you are under no obligation to do so.
The definition of 'observation' is not necessary to do science as it is not necessary to define observations to test hypothesies.
However, you've also declared that science can also test for what is real - because observable = being real - which is a more extaordinary claim.

Watching you trying to keep the wheel from skidding into pure gibberish is rather impressive.

 

[8enotto]

"I wonder how the **** this works" isn't philosophy. It's just curiosity.

Pardon me, por favor. I was reading that philosophy purported to give answers to big, deep questions. Then it also asks and looks into those things by observation or other means and then thought out possible causes. Which might lead to answers that sounded plausible.

Or not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Pardon me, por favor. I was reading that philosophy purported to give answers to big, deep questions.

Which would mean something if it had ever actually once did anything remotely approaching that.

 

[Belz...]

Pardon me, por favor. I was reading that philosophy purported to give answers to big, deep questions.

And while they ponder those "deep" questions for centuries, even millennia, science eventually not only finds the answers but demonstrates that the questions were either worded poorly or nonsensical to begin with.

Yeah, pretty ******* deep.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philosophy: "Hello. I call to order the 4,343,982nd meeting of the Grand Old Philosopher's Club. Today, yet again, we will sit around and ponder with our great minds the problem of Zeno's Arrow Paradox, as we did the day before, and the day before that, and the day before...."

Science: *Sticking its head in the door* "Yeah you can stop. Solved. Quantum superposition of the basic elementary particles of the arrow do allow it to be in more than one place in its flight at once, so there is no paradox of motion. Also *checks notes* the egg came first, if a tree falls in the forest it still makes sound waves even absent a human ear, and Obler's Paradox is just caused by standard Redshifting. You're welcome."

 

[Allen773]

Yes. Ask Me Anything.

 

[8enotto]

I didn't say it had been right. I was just trying to work out the process it would need to do whatever believer types say it does.

Science has been the forefront of advances and seems to making bigger strides foreward as we go along.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why do people keep doing that? Keep going "Oh I thought Philosophy did bla bla blah..." and then going "Oh but I never said it worked!"

If it doesn't work, what are we talking about?

 

[Belz...]

I didn't say it had been right. I was just trying to work out the process it would need to do whatever believer types say it does.

Science has been the forefront of advances and seems to making bigger strides foreward as we go along.

Great. Just so we're all on the same page; science works, philosophy twaddles.

 

[bruto]

It can suggest anything it wants. Unless it can produce results, it's pointless.

I don't think that follows terribly well.

Imagine that you've lost your car keys. Although I do not know where they are, I suggest a way to search for them. Using that method you find the keys. Was my suggestion pointless?

 

[Belz...]

I don't think that follows terribly well.

Imagine that you've lost your car keys. Although I do not know where they are, I suggest a way to search for them. Using that method you find the keys. Was my suggestion pointless?

Did your suggestion have any odds of producing results?

 

[ynot]

I don't think that follows terribly well.

Imagine that you've lost your car keys. Although I do not know where they are, I suggest a way to search for them. Using that method you find the keys. Was my suggestion pointless?

If the suggested method was to pray to a god for help (theism), then finding the keys was dumb luck, despite the pointless method.

If the suggested method was to question and debate whether the keys are lost or don't exist (philosophy), then finding the keys was dumb luck, despite the pointless method.

If the suggested method was to use logical investigation, observation, trial and error, and process of elimination to find the keys (science), then the suggestion/method was scientific, which wasn't/isn't pointless.

Go ahead - Suggest a purely philosophical method that will help to find lost keys (without claiming philosophy is science).