Does anything exist?

[MarkCorrigan]

Why on earth would it be?

 

[Belz...]

Right. If you approach something scientifically, there are a rigorous set of standards. Dynamite. Philosophy does, too.

No, no. Philosophy MAY. Not does, MAY. And there are no standards to ensure that anyone doing "philosophy" (which philosophy proponents here refuse to define) is rigorous or even grounded in any reality.

Are you suggesting such a philosophy is not valid?

Why do people ask those weird ass questions that don't seem to come from anywhere?

 

[ServiceSoon]

What a strange question.

Back up: what "such" methods?

Do you think science was developed philosophically, from a group of mustache-twirlers in a smoked-up room? Or did perhaps it develop from experience without any deep thinking about universal implications?

What a strange question. Why do you keep asking these questions that have nothing to do with anything I've said?

And this has nothing to do with our discussion.

I'm dying to see examples.

It's the same point you're making over and over in your post but I don't see where you're going with this that has anything to do with the quote you provided from me.

Such as?

I think you have me confused with someone else. Nothing in your post has anything to do with the post you were replying to. I think you got mixed up with your own definition of "human knowledge".

You requested methods other than science by which knowledge can be gained. I gave examples. Your response was dismissal without explanation or justification. Would you care to provide more details on the reason for your immediate rejection?

Any wisdom I share from the bible which is still in common use today and supported by Scientific understanding will be immediately dismissed (hand-waived away) in the similar manner as the other examples I gave, therefore I will not waste our time providing such information. For somebody to take the extreme position that every.single.word in the bible is false has a very large speck in their eye, so to speak

Are you able to provide any resource from a respected university in the United States which claims there is NO link whatsoever between science and philosophy? I'd be interested in reading their commentary.

Are you aware of any prominent scientist in contemporary society that are dismissive of philosophy? I'd be interested in reading their commentary.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But the Bible is garbage. It occasionally regurgitates a useful idea (Be nice to one another! Don't steal! Don't murder!) but these are not unique to the bible. I cannot think of a single thing in the bible that is validated by science that is unique to the bible among other literature or beliefs of the time.

 

[Thermal]

No, no. Philosophy MAY. Not does, MAY. And there are no standards to ensure that anyone doing "philosophy" (which philosophy proponents here refuse to define) is rigorous or even grounded in any reality.

Ok, may. We can go over premises and conclusions, and logical validity and soundness and stuff if you want to insist there are no standards, or we can cut to the chase and ask why you still insist they are largely competing disciplines. They are not.

{Eta: if Phil is not competing with science on a science matter, why do you fault it for not being scientific? Ie, my philosophy of self defense relies heavily on my values and ethics, which are abstract enough to not count as science. Why does this bother you?}

Why do people ask those weird ass questions that don't seem to come from anywhere?

They follow from your weird ass qualifiers. You say that science has at least some knowledge and methodology. I gave an example of a philosophical viewpoint that employs knowledge and methodology. Your implication seems to be that Phil employs none, so is my example invalid? If so, why? If not, what are you complaining about?

 

[Belz...]

You requested methods other than science by which knowledge can be gained.

You are confused. You spoke of "expanding human knowledge". Presumably you're not just talking about experience broadly.

Your response was dismissal without explanation or justification.

That is a total lie. My responses included questions, requests, and comments. None of which you've responded to, by the way.

Any wisdom I share from the bible which is still in common use today and supported by Scientific understanding will be immediately dismissed (hand-waived away) in the similar manner as the other examples I gave, therefore I will not waste our time providing such information. For somebody to take the extreme position that every.single.word in the bible is false has a very large speck in their eye, so to speak

In other words you have NOTHING and are blaming future me for it. Very philosophical of you. Try me.

Are you able to provide any resource from a respected university in the United States which claims there is NO link whatsoever between science and philosophy?

I'm under no obligation to prove a negative claim. I've made an argument, one that has been steadfastly ignored.

Are you aware of any prominent scientist in contemporary society that are dismissive of philosophy?

Again, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You're all over the place.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, may. We can go over premises and conclusions, and logical validity and soundness and stuff if you want to insist there are no standards, or we can cut to the chase and ask why you still insist they are largely competing disciplines. They are not.

I never said they are competing disciplines. I think you've got your posters crossed.

But you're missing the larger point. If philosophy has no requirement to be rigorous, sound, valid or even based in reality, and if it's so broad as to include any sort of structured thinking (ignoring the definitions I've given, of course), then it's impossible to say anything about its usefulness, as a whole. It "may" have standards is the same as saying it doesn't really have any. How can you tell good philosophy from bad philosophy, since results aren't part of what's expected of it?

You say that science has at least some knowledge and methodology.

See, you're still distorting what I say and basing your responses on that. Why are you doing that?

Your implication seems to be that Phil employs none

Maybe if you spent more time responding to what I actually say (like science) rather than to what you think is implied or interpreted (like philosophy) your answers would be more useful.

 

[The Common Potato]

Philosophers, the same people making up answers that don't make any sense for a question only they are asking and acting like this is worth anyone's time.

Ancient Greek trolls!

 

[Darat]

Maybe it will be called "food saltyizer" and have Sulfate, Calcium and Magnesium in it as well. …snip….

Have to admit my bit of prediction was wrong - I thought it would be LarryS who first of all decided to be dishonest in the manner you have been.

I fully expect the theories underpinning electromagnetism to change by then and this may even have consequences for how we understand electrons. This shouldn't change our understanding of covalent bonding because this is observed behavior that any new or modified theory needs to account for.

All irrelevant to the claims made.

 

[Darat]

I don't know if the Periodic Table will be the go-to organizing tool for matter in 500 years, it could an antique/artifact buried in some museum of science someplace.

But at least I was right in part i.e. you would be dishonest in the manner you are above.

 

[abaddon]

It's take you 25 pages to realize that everyone involved has already rejected the premise in the thread title?

Describe the philosophy that brought you to that view.

 

[Belz...]

Have to admit my bit of prediction was wrong - I thought it would be LarryS who first of all decided to be dishonest in the manner you have been.

Well let's not forget that he answered the question "Is question X a matter of philosophy?" with "I don't understand the context, but philosophy could come up with a different answer". Twice!

 

[JoeMorgue]

They're trapped and can't/won't admit it.

They are playing all the smug but hollow philosophy truism trump cards and for some reason people aren't just wowed by their cleverness. So they are just playing them over and over with all the subtly of someone pressing a button over and over.

But please philosophy fanboys just ask us "aRe U sAYInng aLL phiILOSPHDXYODYFSDF is invAALLID?" for the 34th time.

 

[IanS]

This is at odds with your vehement objections to anyone who says things like "science provides useful models not truth". It's also at odds with you extreme response to the video below by quantum physicist Sabine Hossenfelder about how we interpret the world around us.

No, it's not at all at any odds with I have consistently said all through this thread. In past replies I have taken the trouble to carefully explain it all to you. But I am not going to keep spending my time doing that for you.

You need to read more carefully what I actually said. You need to learn how to stop your confirmation bias misleading you.

If you want to understand science you need to understand things like what can be used as evidence, how string that evidence is, what science is doing that makes it effective, whether something is actually science in the first place, whether an argument I logically sound, when there is enough evidence to just move on an ignore the deniers, etc

These all flow out of philosophy. many scientists spick up enough to get by, but if you look at the history of how prominent scientists fail dramatically when they try to work outside their own fields and it becomes obvious many lack these essential skills. They get by in their own fields but when called on to evaluate science outside that filed they can't do it properly.

If you want to understand science then you need t take some proper science courses and get some real qualifications/education.

 

[IanS]

I don't know if the Periodic Table will be the go-to organizing tool for matter in 500 years, it could an antique/artifact buried in some museum of science someplace.

You say that could be the case ... you are saying you know that to be a possible outcome … OK, so so how do you know that to be a fact? How did you show that to be possible?

And what would be shown to be wrong with organising the elements in a tabular form of ascending atomic number?

 

[LarryS]

You say that could be the case ... you are saying you know that to be a possible outcome … OK, so so how do you know that to be a fact? How did you show that to be possible?

And what would be shown to be wrong with organising the elements in a tabular form of ascending atomic number?

. . . the Periodic Table becoming a 'relic' . . . I'm not saying it's a fact, but it's possible. Science has under-gone paradigm shifts in the past - developed totally new ways of looking at things. I have no reason to think any POV is sacred or will persist. Should that happen, that doesn't make the Periodic Table wrong, just not the manner/way things are viewed or classified or understood.

 

[Steve]

. . . the Periodic Table becoming a 'relic' . . . I'm not saying it's a fact, but it's possible. Science has under-gone paradigm shifts in the past - developed totally new ways of looking at things. I have no reason to think any POV is sacred or will persist. Should that happen, that doesn't make the Periodic Table wrong, just not the manner/way things are viewed or classified or understood.

The constituent elements making up table salt are quite independent of the Periodic Table. If humans and their classification system disappeared tomorrow the compound we currently call table salt would still exist in its present form.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Labeling of the parts and categorization changes doesn't mean anything has actually changed.

Again science will often refine terms to make things more clear. This isn't the same thing as functional actual real stuff changing.

I know doing things "to make things more clear" is a new and terrifying concept for philsopshizers, but please try to make peace with it.

 

[Belz...]

. . . the Periodic Table becoming a 'relic' . . . I'm not saying it's a fact, but it's possible. Science has under-gone paradigm shifts in the past - developed totally new ways of looking at things.

What are you even talking about? No matter how you arrange the table it won't change the physical and chemical characteristics of the elements themselves.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again there is nothing, no meaning AT ALL, hidden somewhere in the difference between "I have five fingers" and "I have four fingers and thumb."

Philosophers love putting the language cart in front of the reality horse.