Does anything exist?

[IanS]

Are you claiming that the ONLY way that the Cult of Science and religion can be determined to be similar is if they both preach supernatural? Preaching the supernatural is not the only defining aspect of religion.

My perception is that you are giving credit wholly to Science and invalidating any thing else that contributes and continues to contribute to Sciences success. Giving Science ALL of the credit is similar to religions folks giving ALL of everything to god. Religious folk are fond of preaching, his will be done, or God has got this. Giving ALL of the credit to god or Science is one of the similarities that I found between those in the Cult of Science and religion.

I am intending to communicate that the complete invalidation of factors that contribute to Sciences success is an indefensible position based on a negation of the historical development of our knowledge base. I recognize and am appreciative of the knowledge that Science has allowed us to discover.

The discovery of the scientific process is a result of philosophy. Since the discovery of the scientific process, I agree that humans have been able to expand our understanding of the world around us at a much faster and at a higher confidence than when philosophy alone was our tool.

If I may attempt an anology, which I generally shy away from. Whose contribution to the posterity of mankind is most important, who should get ALL of the credit? Males or females? The answer is simple, we need both sexes. We also need Science and philosophy.

My perception is that you defend Science so dearly because you said earlier that you have a PhD...which is to ask...Am I safe to assume that you have dedicated your career to Science? I would also defend anything that could be perceived to threaten my life's dedication. The coexistence of philosophy and Science are possible and preferred.

Well I'm not going to bother with any of that any more, and I did not even read it (we've been through it all before, and as always with philosophy it's become the usual attempt at wasting everyone's time by creating arguments intended to be carried on endlessly until everyone except the philosophers decide they have far better better things to do with their time). It's frustrating, but that seems to be the main goal of philosophy – to create arguments and waste everyones time.

But I did very briefly notice your last sentence - and the answer is actually "No", you would not be right ... after my last 12 years or so in research lecturing postgraduates on certain aspects of condensed matter physics & stochastic processes in QM, I decided to quit the full-time science and I've since spent the last 15 years playing guitar in various bands and teaching music (as well as wasting time arguing with religious people & philosophers on the internet!).

 

[IanS]

I have a soft spot for philosophy, once having studied it pretty hard, and I still think there is some room for it (I'm with Thermal on this one). But I must also say that issues like whether things exist, or whether the universe is a simulation, or whether salt is really salt, are among the reasons I don't dabble in it any more except occasionally to yell "ouch" when people claim it never was worth anything at all. I am still a little reluctant to say that philosophy has run its course, but I think philosophers are doing their damnedest to change my mind.

Well, that is about the state of things now in the 21st century. That is about what it's come to for philosophy.

It really has no practical use any more. And that's probably because (as I've said several times before), the use that it originally claimed to have, was that of explaining the universe around us ... but that role has been entirely taken away by science.

Philosophers may claim that they still have a role in asking questions and making people think etc. And they may claim that they can still do that for every other field of study & for every aspect of human life (politics was raised as an example), but none of the people involved in any of those other academic subjects or in any of those other professions want or need the advice of philosophers.

You can see a lot of that every day in legal cases that come before the courts. Where in a great many cases (especially the more serious cases) various experts are called as important witnesses … scientific and medical experts are routinely relied upon by all sides of the case, advocates for the prosecution & the defence, the judge and the jury … other experts are also often called to help explain the evidence – financial experts, historians, architects and surveyors, all sorts of qualified people … what we never see any more are defence or prosecution lawyers calling philosophers or priests as their expert witnesses to give persuasive evidence or argument before the judge & jury ….

… in the distant past, before modern science (roughly before about 1600), it was no doubt commonplace for the courts (such as they were) to call a philosopher or a priest to persuade the judges and jurors. But that has all completely gone. And the reason is that neither philosophers or clerics have anything credible to contribute that would assist or convince any educated or properly advised jury (“advised” by the judge).

 

[IanS]

Scientists can but honest and reputable scientists do not.

Quite apart from that - this is why we have a process of quite rigorous peer review ... individual scientists can make mistakes for various reasons ... some might even try to fiddle certain results ... but in the end that gets exposed by the publication process ...

... first you have the steps of editorial and peer review ... but even after that, if there are errors or even falsified data in the paper, then it will quickly get found out when other scientists all over the world start checking what the paper says with their own experiments (often using different techniques) ... if the data claimed in the paper is not reproduceable then it will quickly be exposed in opposing papers ...

... it's almost impossible to get away with significant errors or any dishonest falsehoods for very long.

AFAIK no other academic subject really has such a strong process of testing and checking.

The point about what we now know as modern science, is that it's really all about honesty and making sure the work is truthful. Whereas that really could not be said about most other fields of study, where conjecture and guesswork have often been presented as if they were/are actual facts. That's really why science works and why earlier subjects such as philosophy and religion do not work (just not truthful enough).

 

[Steve]

Quite apart from that - this is why we have a process of quite rigorous peer review ... individual scientists can make mistakes for various reasons ... some might even try to fiddle certain results ... but in the end that gets exposed by the publication process ...

... first you have the steps of editorial and peer review ... but even after that, if there are errors or even falsified data in the paper, then it will quickly get found out when other scientists all over the world start checking what the paper says with their own experiments (often using different techniques) ... if the data claimed in the paper is not reproduceable then it will quickly be exposed in opposing papers ...

... it's almost impossible to get away with significant errors or any dishonest falsehoods for very long.
AFAIK no other academic subject really has such a strong process of testing and checking.

The point about what we now know as modern science, is that it's really all about honesty and making sure the work is truthful. Whereas that really could not be said about most other fields of study, where conjecture and guesswork have often been presented as if they were/are actual facts. That's really why science works and why earlier subjects such as philosophy and religion do not work (just not truthful enough).

In actual science, yeah. But we all know that these days anyone with alphabet soup after their name can post something on the internet and many credulous people will be fooled into thinking it us "science" (or "philosophy" )

 

[Belz...]

Oh sorry, I didn't realize your argument was that philosophy doesn't exist.

Don't play games with me, Roger. You should know me enough by now to know that I have zero patience for that. It's the NATURE of the argument that I'm making a parallel to, not the phrasing. Don't play coy.

Yes, we do. But apparently philosophical discussions are somehow uniquely valueless.

The discussion isn't valueless. That's not the argument being made.

I think you know both of those things, so why act as if you don't?

 

[IanS]

But it is doing something right now - it's keeping this thread going.

Now you could argue that if that's all philosophy is good for then it's useless, but if so what are you doing here?

I think the answer to why some of us oppose what is being claimed as the power of philosophy, and also claimed as the weakness of science, is that we object to people spreading what seems to us to be untrue biased claims on an open public forum ...

... it's the same reason why we speak up against religious people trying to spread claims of divine creation & bible inerrancy etc. (it's anti-educational ... and in particular it's anti-science).

 

[The Man]

Potato chips, ketchup, pickles? Those are all philosophy, too. See how easy it is to state things as fact?

Epistemology, I'm with you. Ethics, half-and-half, because in the end it's how you feel about X that'll determine if it's good or not, regardless of how much thinking you do about it. Logic? The study of it, maybe. The use of it, maybe. But the actual boolean implications of P and Q? Nah. That has nothing to do with philosophy, and here's a demonstration: "Is the question 'are X and ~X mutually-exclusive' a matter of philosophy?"

Yes, the technical (philosophical) term is Dialetheism.


Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Dialetheism

A dialetheia is a sentence, A, such that both it and its negation, ¬A, are true. If falsity is assumed to be the truth of negation, a dialetheia is a sentence which is both true and false. Such a sentence is, or has, what is called a truth value glut, in distinction to a gap, a sentence that is neither true nor false. (We shall talk of sentences throughout this entry; but one could run the definition in terms of propositions, statements, or whatever one takes as one’s favourite truth-bearer: this would make little difference in the context.)

 

[Steve]

Yes, the technical (philosophical) term is Dialetheism.


Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Dialetheism

Encyclopedia of philosophy you say. For sure that is where that word salad belongs.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, the technical (philosophical) term is Dialetheism.


Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Dialetheism

Yes, we all know we can create a sentence that's nonsense.

My simple question seems to confuse a LOT of people here. I don't understand why.

 

[The Man]

Encyclopedia of philosophy you say. For sure that is where that word salad belongs.

Perhaps, yet you can find very similar word salads, with different croutons of credulity thrown in, in the math, science and technology threads here. That's how I came across it, in addressing someone's assertion of something being both in and not in a set. Basically, if such a contradiction could be considered true then, magic. Whatever they propose could be true as well. However, the Principle of Explosion doesn't always hold or can be limited in paraconsistent logic. So in holding such a contradiction to be true they can very well limit the resulting explosion of the implication of truth away from their pet notion. Basically the opposite of the intent. The devil of course being in the details.

By no means am I a philosophy type guy, my knowledge of the field is minimal. Fundamentally, and mainly professionally, I'm a experimentalist. I'm simply relating the existence of the philosophical approach queried and how, as noted above, I happened across it.

 

[The Man]

Yes, we all know we can create a sentence that's nonsense.

But that wasn't your question.

My simple question seems to confuse a LOT of people here. I don't understand why.

If a direct answer to your simple question results in a lack of understanding on your part, then perhaps the seeming confusion is similarly limited.

 

[Belz...]

But that wasn't your question.

Indeed, which is why I'm puzzled by your answer.

If a direct answer to your simple question results in a lack of understanding on your part, then perhaps the seeming confusion is similarly limited.

Your answer has nothing to do with my question. If you think it does, then explain.

I wasn't asking if two-bit philosophers can construct a sentence that is logically contradictory. I'm very simply asking if the very idea of logical contradiction is philosophical in nature. I have a follow up question but since no one can even grasp the first one we're kinda stuck.

 

[abaddon]

Potato chips, ketchup, pickles? Those are all philosophy, too. See how easy it is to state things as fact?

Epistemology, I'm with you. Ethics, half-and-half, because in the end it's how you feel about X that'll determine if it's good or not, regardless of how much thinking you do about it. Logic? The study of it, maybe. The use of it, maybe. But the actual boolean implications of P and Q? Nah. That has nothing to do with philosophy, and here's a demonstration: "Is the question 'are X and ~X mutually-exclusive' a matter of philosophy?"

Nope that would be a foundational presupposition.

 

[Darat]

Nope that would be a foundational presupposition.

That would be an ecumenical matter…..

 

[The Man]

Indeed, which is why I'm puzzled by your answer.

Wait, so you're puzzled by the fact that I didn't answer a question you didn't ask?

Look, if you want to answer your own questions (or pretend you're giving someone else's answer) you should at least make it to the question you did ask.

However, if the question you ask isn't the one your wanted answered, then I can do that too. Sure even a machine can create a sentence that's nonsense.

Your answer has nothing to do with my question. If you think it does, then explain.

You asked "Is the question 'are X and ~X mutually-exclusive' a matter of philosophy?". It is, and the philosophical approach that directly takes the position they aren't, or need not be, mutually-exclusive is called Dialetheism.

I wasn't asking if two-bit philosophers can construct a sentence that is logically contradictory. I'm very simply asking if the very idea of logical contradiction is philosophical in nature. I have a follow up question but since no one can even grasp the first one we're kinda stuck.

Again, yes, the very idea of logical contradiction is philosophical in nature. While Dialetheism deals with the strong assertion that there are true contradictions (meaning a contradictory statement where the truth value evaluates to TRUE). Other forms of paraconsistent logic take a weaker approach to direct contradiction. One form that interested me for a bit (like an hour or two) was Brazilian logic, though I was never able to find much specific detail on it.

Fundamentally, it has to be a philosophical question because logical consistency (TRUE = NOT FALSE) is an axiom. You can't prove it logically as that would depend on logical consistency and be circular. Also you can't disprove it illogically, as such a proof would thus become equally true as it was false. So the question of what happens without the axiom of logical consistency, or more weakly what happens if the principle of explosion is limited (as well as the other ways that paraconsistent logic approaches contradictions) has to be philosophical. Now whether you find such questions to be particularly useful or not (perhaps your follow up question) is up to you. As noted by the short time it interested me, I didn't. However, that doesn't change the nature of the question (as you asked).

By all means, please, ask your follow up question and I'll try to do the best I can, but this really ain't my bailiwick.

 

[Belz...]

Wait, so you're puzzled by the fact that I didn't answer a question you didn't ask?

No, I'm puzzled by the fact you answered one I didn't ask. Lots of that going around in this thread.

You asked "Is the question 'are X and ~X mutually-exclusive' a matter of philosophy?". It is, and the philosophical approach that directly takes the position they aren't, or need not be, mutually-exclusive is called Dialetheism.

Marvelous. My first direct answer in this thread. So now, the follow up: could philosophy conclude that X and ~X are NOT mutually exclusive?

Fundamentally, it has to be a philosophical question because logical consistency (TRUE = NOT FALSE) is an axiom.

I think you just contradicted yourself there. I'll wait to see if you can work out why.

 

[The Man]

No, I'm puzzled by the fact you answered one I didn't ask. Lots of that going around in this thread.

"Yes, we all know we can create a sentence that's nonsense." was your own answer to your question, not mine.

Marvelous. My first direct answer in this thread. So now, the follow up: could philosophy conclude that X and ~X are NOT mutually exclusive?

Again, as directly answered before, it is a philosophical approach called Dialetheism. Though "conclude" would be a misrepresentation since it would be like a contradiction always being false (due to TRUE = NOT FALSE being an axiom), a foundational presupposition, as abaddon noted.

I think you just contradicted yourself there. I'll wait to see if you can work out why.

Wait as long as suits you.

 

[abaddon]

That would be an ecumenical matter…..

Ah, right Ted. So this jesus thing, is it real or what?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so you need philosophy to serve as a bedrock for science.

So what acts as the bedrock for philsophy? Outside of the well-tread "Well we just define it so broadly and so poorly that it means anything and everything" routine why does philosophy get to just... self actualize but science doesn't?

The argument seems to be that philosophy made up the bedrock of science's most basic ideas, ideas which can't by definition, have come from science because ipso facto cart v horseness reasons.

But doesn't that exact argument work for philosophy? Does philosophy need some pre-philosophy methodology to get to it? And a methodology to get to the pre-philosophy? And so forth and so forth, methodologies all the way down.

Again this is functionally identical to argue with the God botherers. God gets to bootstrap himself into existence, but the universe doesn't because of *mumbles... errr reasons mumbles* so God had to have existed to create the universe, but don't ask me what created God because that's a different question because I said so.

Exact same thing here. You need philosophy to get to science but philosophy gets to just "exist" from the onset because it gets to create itself because it gets defined that way.

I see zero reason, other then the obvious ulterior one, that "all of thought" gets to start a philosophy anymore or less than it gets to start at science.

 

[The Man]

Okay so you need philosophy to serve as a bedrock for science.

So what acts as the bedrock for philsophy? Outside of the well-tread "Well we just define it so broadly and so poorly that it means anything and everything" routine why does philosophy get to just... self actualize but science doesn't?

The argument seems to be that philosophy made up the bedrock of science's most basic ideas, ideas which can't by definition, have come from science because ipso facto cart v horseness reasons.

But doesn't that exact argument work for philosophy? Does philosophy need some pre-philosophy methodology to get to it? And a methodology to get to the pre-philosophy? And so forth and so forth, methodologies all the way down.

Again this is functionally identical to argue with the God botherers. God gets to bootstrap himself into existence, but the universe doesn't because of *mumbles... errr reasons mumbles* so God had to have existed to create the universe, but don't ask me what created God because that's a different question because I said so.

Exact same thing here. You need philosophy to get to science but philosophy gets to just "exist" from the onset because it gets to create itself because it gets defined that way.

I see zero reason, other then the obvious ulterior one, that "all of thought" gets to start a philosophy anymore or less than it gets to start at science.

Basically foundational things like axioms, tautologies, contradictions and such that form the basis of reasoning or say mathematics and logic and other such "A priori" (purely reasoned) knowledge in contrast to "a posteriori" knowledge from empirical evidence and personnal experience.

Two I often use as examples are logical consistency (TRUE = NOT FALSE), mentioned before, and historical consistency. Historical consistency means events of the past can be used to project the out come of similar events in the future. A fundamental necessity for an experimentalist. That it currently holds is in no way proof that it will continue to hold. As that, in itself, would depend only upon the assumption of Historical consistency. Conversely were it not to hold in one instance or for some time also wouldn't be proof that it always won't hold, again due to the dependence on the assumption of Historical consistency. Further demonstrating that it never holds would itself be a form (though considerably weaker) of historical consistency in that one can then project that the out come of future similar events will usually be significantly different from those of past events.