Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

Note science does not produce answers, it produces explanations/predictions for observations.

Again, that's the SAME THING. An explanation IS an answer. There is literally nothing else to be found beyond it.

It does not answer questions re the nature of things

That's because "the nature of things" is nonsensical. It's deliberately impossible to answer so that people can keep claiming to have insight about it.

Try it: what would knowing the "true nature" of things add to our understanding or lives?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Note science does not produce answers, it produces explanations/predictions for observations.

More "Science can only give you facts, you need philosophibly to give DA TWOOF" nonsense. A complete distinction without any difference that you won't even pretend to explain.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yea....yea I'm going to say that the idea that science doesn't produce answers is clear hokum. Of course it does, that's what it's for.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're also approaching fringe reset levels, as the last few points to be made have already been addressed, multiple times.

 

[Darat]

Note science does not produce answers, it produces explanations/predictions for observations.

Yeah that is what we call "answers"....

It does not answer questions re the nature of things - it is not even baked into science to net a singular explanation/answer for anything.

Yes it does, it is one of the things it does best. Want to know the "nature" of your common salt, well it's a combination of sodium and chlorine. Don't think philosophy will give you that answer.

Ptolemy used epicycles and etc. to justify/save his observations - - - No scientist can ever claim his/her explanations and predictions are more than justifying/saving their observations.
Science may be the best thing going, but like everything else in this world, science and philosophy, they is what they is, and they isn't what they isn't.

Nope.

You are confusing grammatically correct English sentences and questions to be a description of reality; even some philosophers 2000 years ago realised that their spoken and written language didn't describe reality.

All you are doing is right back to the silly semantic games of which my prime example, "The star-ship accelerated beyond the speed of light" demonstrates why what you think is "meaningful" is a load of crap when it comes to saying anything about reality

Just because something makes "semantic sense" in the English language doesn't mean it is describing anything that could be real.


ETA: By the way - what is the philosophical answer to "Does anything exist?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

We've basically reached the Plank Argument and now there's nothing to do but watch it repeat.

"Science gives you X kind of information, but you need Philosophy to give you Y kind of information."

Two key questions:

- What is the difference between between X and Y types of information EXPLAINED IN A WAY THIS ISN'T JUST A SELF-DEFINED DISTINCTION WITHOUT DIFFERENCE?

- What information has Philosophy given us and how did it do it? What are its methods? Without scientific concepts like falsifiability how is what Philosophy produces even honestly called data/info/answers?

... have just aggressively not been addressed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also the whole idea that "Philosophy" is some sort of... Curiosity Angel sitting on our shoulder constantly reminding us not to forget basic questions exist is equally stupid.

As said Science (or other broad rational based methodologies so the "OMG it's not science unless its beakers and labcoats" types don't drag up back down into pointless semantics) doesn't need Philosophy to remind it which questions need answering.

 

[abaddon]

Right back to this stupid, already addressed nonsense.

"But philsophicalability answers questions that science can't!"

HOW? WHEN?

Easy. If the invisible dragon in my garage marries the imaginary unicorn, What will their offspring be like?

It is valid philosophy to so enquire.

Useless, but valid philosophy.

How can I know that? Thermal and others made that claim and continue to make that claim, because...I have no idea of any because.

Ask pointless question, get pointless answers. Yay.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It also assumes (wrongly) that science is somehow completely incapable of asking esoteric questions or questions not 100% tethered to physical reality.

 

[Myriad]

Is there a way of determining which is best?

Which is best to apply in some particular exact circumstance can probably be determined by science. If you know the exact circumstances, you could probably run monte carlo models or something and determine the exact length of time one should spend searching for car keys before e.g. calling a locksmith instead, to yield the best expected results. But that answer would apply only to those circumstances.

Which is best to carry around with you as a habit or belief or character trait—should you behave in a "persistent" or "stubborn" manner ("keep looking for those keys, they can't have just disappeared!") or an "adaptable" or "distractible" manner instead ("never mind, if they don't turn up by tomorrow I'll call the locksmith")—cannot be determined except by individual choice and experience, relative to what circumstances you actually find yourself in, which may or may not be predictable. A fatalistic outlook on life would likely serve a peasant woman in traditional Chinese culture much better than it would, say, a woman born into an industrialized democratic society with equal rights and robust social safety nets. Philosophies arise out of cultures and they inform cultures.

(Why have habits or beliefs or character traits at all? Because we're not very good at optimizing our approaches to every individual situation especially when there are unknowns.)

If you think there might be better choices for solving problems and living a good life than those promoted by the culture you happen to be immersed in (and I hope you do think that), philosophy is the way to examine those choices, whether it's studying historical examples (what do Stoics do differently than Epicureans?) or asking your own questions (what's important for me to achieve in life, and why?)

 

[abaddon]

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

Maybe one should keep searching after having found the keys. They could be somebody else's keys. Should we check if they fit the door? Nope. Far more important to maintain the ambiguity.

After all, they could open the door to your mind. Would you want to lose that opportunity by determining what those keys really open? Dear me no. Far better to not know at all whose keys they might be and merely speculate that one found the keys to the secret of heaven, right?

 

[bruto]

Did you need a philosophy degree or doctorate before it was possible to search for your keys (or guess where they might be)?

The vast majority of people in the world have at some time mislaid their house keys or car keys. Only a miniscule fraction them have philosophy degrees. Yet they all eventually found their keys ... how on earth was that possible without a philosophy degree??? ... Wow one of life's great mysteries there, right?

Who said anything about a degree? One objection to my analogy was that finding them was science, but do you then need a science degree to do that? The issue I am addressing is the contention that a suggestion is worthless if it does not itself contain the solution, an idea I consider pretty nonsensical. A suggestion of how to do something, including how to do it best, or why to do it at all, or why to do it a certain way, might be considered as a philosophical one or not, but whatever you call it, I do not think it should be considered inherently pointless if the person doing the suggesting does not happen to be the person who finds the keys.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Vague truisms are not the kind of thing you need an entire epistemology to justify.

Thing like "A thing is equal to itself" and base human curiosity and other silly little bit of super obviousness are not something that "Philosophy" gets to spontaneously create it self over and take credit for.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who said anything about a degree? One objection to my analogy was that finding them was science, but do you then need a science degree to do that? The issue I am addressing is the contention that a suggestion is worthless if it does not itself contain the solution, an idea I consider pretty nonsensical. A suggestion of how to do something, including how to do it best, or why to do it at all, or why to do it a certain way, might be considered as a philosophical one or not, but whatever you call it, I do not think it should be considered inherently pointless if the person doing the suggesting does not happen to be the person who finds the keys.

Let us not get into the weeds.

It's not a matter of needing a degree per se, that was just a turn of phrase but science, unlike philosophy, has standards.

If you say you are "doing science" but aren't like testing with experimentation, reproducible results, falsifiability, etc, etc, what are doing is not science and whatever results you are getting are not answers/useful data.

You can't say that about Philosophy because (sing along if you know the words) "Everything is philosophy"

That's why multiple people have been begging and remain ignored for example of things which aren't philosophy or philosophy done wrong.

 

[abaddon]

Who said anything about a degree?

Those who have none but immediatly declared it as a discualifition simply because they had none. I would not do that even though I have pointless letters.

But they would. Despite the simple fact they cannot spell in the first place. After all, what use is any actual education, right?

One objection to my analogy was that finding them was science, but do you then need a science degree to do that?

Of course. Targets are a requirement.

The issue I am addressing is the contention that a suggestion is worthless if it does not itself contain the solution, an idea I consider pretty nonsensical.

And rightly so. I am about to rustle up a tasty lunch. There are some here who would claim that is impossible even though I do it every day. Are they right? Is it impossible to eat?

A suggestion of how to do something, including how to do it best, or why to do it at all, or why to do it a certain way, might be considered as a philosophical one or not, but whatever you call it,

Do not care. IU will do whatever simply because I happen to be in the mood. I have no way to know anyone else's mood, Nor any authority to instruct anyone what their mood might or should be as to their diet. Others seem to think they have that right. Because they say so.

I do not think it should be considered inherently pointless if the person doing the suggesting does not happen to be the person who finds the keys.

Bet you a dollar you will fail to demonstrate any of that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'd like to briefly stop the discussion and give a pre-"Jerk off Motion" to the following arguments/truisms/thought terminating cliches before they are made to save everyone the time.

- "Oh but nobody is 100% rational..."
- "With only science reality is cold and dark and without humor or joy!"
- "Science can't describe systems..."
- Any reference to "Holistic Thinking"

 

[LarryS]

Yeah that is what we call "answers"....



Yes it does, it is one of the things it does best. Want to know the "nature" of your common salt, well it's a combination of sodium and chlorine. Don't think philosophy will give you that answer.


Nope.

You are confusing grammatically correct English sentences and questions to be a description of reality; even some philosophers 2000 years ago realised that their spoken and written language didn't describe reality.

All you are doing is right back to the silly semantic games of which my prime example, "The star-ship accelerated beyond the speed of light" demonstrates why what you think is "meaningful" is a load of crap when it comes to saying anything about reality

Just because something makes "semantic sense" in the English language doesn't mean it is describing anything that could be real.


ETA: By the way - what is the philosophical answer to "Does anything exist?"

As a rule I advocate for science over philosophy. Re the answer to the question you ask at the end-not all questions are worth asking, and not all questions have answers.
I recall a professor saying ‘science can tell you urine is a good conductor of electricity, but can’t tell you whether you should or should not pee on an electric fence.’

 

[JoeMorgue]

As a rule I advocate for science over philosophy. Re the answer to the question you ask at the end-not all questions are worth asking, and not all questions have answers.
I recall a professor saying ‘science can tell you urine is a good conductor of electricity, but can’t tell you whether you should or should not pee on an electric fence.’

Gibberish. Anti-intellectual hogwash.

Your professor was an idiot and I hope you didn't listen to him.

 

[Darat]

As a rule I advocate for science over philosophy. Re the answer to the question you ask at the end-not all questions are worth asking, and not all questions have answers.
I recall a professor saying ‘science can tell you urine is a good conductor of electricity, but can’t tell you whether you should or should not pee on an electric fence.’

What is the philosophical answer to “Does anything exist?”

 

[LarryS]

Yes salt as a combination of sodium and Chlorine is an explanation for a set of observations but not for other observations.