Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

The scientific methodology is easy to understand and perform, so a 4th grader can be taught some science, and then the scientific method - and any 4th grader can do science (an experiment).
There is also a doing philospophy, the philosopher formulatates an hypothesis, and that hypophesis then must answer to reason and evidence. Doing philosophy is not doing mysticsim or writing poetry, and philosophy is hard to do, and likely harder to teach than doing science.
This thread is evidence it's hard to 'do philosophy', it's hard to put an argument together.

Harder doesn't mean better.

Besides, science is ALSO very hard. Try to teach a 4th grader to do quantum physics and we'll talk.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I ran across this some time ago and had been planning to post it. Your post Chanakya seems as good time as any.

Recent contribution of philosophy to science, before I read it I didn’t consider philosophy had much at all to contribute to science these days.

Opinion: Why science needs philosophy


While it’s an OP ED piece it does contain useful information.

Einstein also famously said that he probably wouldn't have one up with the special theory of relativity if he hadn't been familiar with the work of David Hume.

Additionally, pure math is basically a type of philosophy. And ironically, pure path often ends up having applications thereby instantly moving from the realm of pure math into that of applied math.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We wouldn't have astronomy without astrology in a technical "X happened then Y happened" sense.

That doesn't make astrology valid, useful, meaningful, or some valid necessary prerequisite for astronomy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Science isn't philosophy. You can't just go "So and so smart famous scientist said this, ergo all you science people have to agree."

That only works with philosophers.

 

[Belz...]

We wouldn't have astronomy without astrology in a technical "X happened then Y happened" sense.

That doesn't make astrology valid, useful, meaningful, or some valid necessary prerequisite for astronomy.

Yeah. If Buck Rogers had inspired Einstein I doubt sci-fi fans would want to take credit for it, or at least no one would be taking them seriously if they did.

 

[Belz...]

Science isn't philosophy. You can't just go "So and so smart famous scientist said this, ergo all you science people have to agree."

That only works with philosophers.

And theists. Notice how often anti-science folk quote Einstein.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Trial and error is a part of rational thinking.

Venerating every individual wrong answer you get on the way to a right answer is not.

Again every way of being wrong isn't just really a stealth alternative form of being right, regardless of what Philosophy keeps trying to tell us.

 

[IanS]

The scientific methodology is easy to understand and perform, so a 4th grader can be taught some science, and then the scientific method - and any 4th grader can do science (an experiment).
There is also a doing philospophy, the philosopher formulatates an hypothesis, and that hypophesis then must answer to reason and evidence. Doing philosophy is not doing mysticsim or writing poetry, and philosophy is hard to do, and likely harder to teach than doing science.
This thread is evidence it's hard to 'do philosophy', it's hard to put an argument together.

crikey ... I don't know where to start with that lot... it's completely off the scale of being anywhere near right ... I mean, Larry, come on, really ...

... if your 4th graders can "do science", then they can just a easily do philosophy.

As for philosophy being harder to grasp or to perform than science ... you must have forgotten about 99% of science in that belief. Do you really think it's harder to think of philosophical issues than it is to plan and build a space probe to land on the surface of a comet orbiting past Jupiter? ... which parts of philosophy do you think are more intellectually challenging and more taxing generally than what has been achieved in allowing us now to have the model we have of particle-field theory or descriptions of the Big Bang and how that can be explained to fit with both quantum theory and relativity?

You could name literally a million things that are the result of current science, and for which philosophy is not remotely comparable as a subject or field of study.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again this argument would get a LOT more traction if the Venn Diagram of posters here to huffily defend philosophy's honor and of posters who have some previous Woo/anti-intellectual stance they have to defend wasn't a nearly perfect circle.

Almost as if having a methodology that doesn't depend on facts and evidence and reason in their back pockets at all times has some weird specific appeal to people who are wrong about something but can't get over it. Almost as if "I don't want to be wrong, so I'll just redefine what wrong means so I'm not wrong anymore" couldn't replace 99% of the pro-philosophy arguments without anything changing.

Again if I'm being told my base method of obtaining information about the universe is wrong or incomplete or inefficient that criticism is going to have to come from people who aren't constantly wrong all the time before I'll listen.

At this point, this discussion has all the meaning of the homeless guy at the bus stop trying to sell me on his get rich quick scheme.

 

[Thermal]

Too drunk to argue RN but happy 4th mother *******

 

[The Man]

That's a distinction without a difference. The mere fact that you can say "This sentence is false" doesn't create a real-world paradox. It's just a rhetorical trick.

It does, however, create a logical paradox, or specifically a contradiction, which get used in the ‘real world’ all the time.

I’ll give two examples, one hypothetical and one from ‘the real world’.

Dragons don’t exist in the real world, so any discussion or questions about dragons (like can they eat themselves while simultaneous pooping themselves out?).has to fall within a mode of discussion or questioning that need not be constrained by the real world. Like say fantasy, entertainment, philosophy or even logic. Certainly such discussions and questions can have implications to the real world. However, the situation given precludes the necessity that they must. The rhetorical trick and contradiction comes by insisting such discussions must have implications to the real world in order to simply be a question within fantasy, entertainment, philosophy or even logic. The rhetorical trick is a red herring, a means to dismiss the discussion and questions as falling within those categories despite the fact that the very assertion that dragons don’t exist, confines them to those categories.

With the assertion that contradictions don’t exist in the real world and that philosophy can consider such things, the situation is the same. Real world implications aren’t themselves precluded but any requirement that there must be such implication is. Denying that the question falls within philosophy or requiring real world implication for such, is just the same self-contradictory rhetorical trick. It’s the very assertion of non-existence that ascribes the question to that mode (philosophical) of discussion or questioning.

 

[The Man]

Ok at this point your inability to follow the conversation must be deliberate.

Ok, at this point your dishonest argentation must be deliberate.

It's not a philosophy. It's a fact.

Once again: your inability to follow a conversation doesn't make me dishonest. Now move on and discuss the actual topic. I am not that topic.

No one claimed you were the topic, and even your dishonest argumentation doesn't make you necessarily dishonest. I just means your style of argumentation is.

You want to move on, then just do so. The only one that could possibly be stopping you is just, well, you and that is a fact.

I asked the question MULTIPLE times, and in most cases I clarified that it must work in real life because otherwise it's pointless. That I didn't make that clear initially doesn't erase the clarifications that came after. You are reaching.

Actually you asked multiple different questions. Remember those moving goal post?

'Give me real world examples of something I claim isn't real' is not a clarification of "Is the question 'are X and ~X mutually-exclusive' a matter of philosophy?" or even then your follow up "could philosophy conclude that X and ~X are NOT mutually exclusive?". Your finial "clarification" (after I think 2 or 3 more) is just a self-contradictory rhetorical trick. You didn't make it clear initially because, even then, I suspect you probably knew it was crap.

You can't even keep your own schtick straight.

No they're not. The foundation of science is reality. I'm asking you for real-world applications of the philosophy you claim deals in real contradictions. From your focus on me, and your inability to actually provide said applications, I can only conclude that there aren't any.

Nope, reality (specifically the results of experimentation and/or observations) is what science tries to describe by, well, theoretical conceptions.

Nope, I didn't claim it deals "in real contradictions" I claimed quite specifically and explicitly that it purportedly deals with contradictions as conceptual or philosophical constructs.

Nope, the focus isn't on you, however, your crappy and self-contradictory arguments are relevant to the discussion.

You seem to be conflating something simply being logically TRUE with it being 'real' (outside of it being just a conceptual or philosophical construct). If that were the case then the following...

J.R.R Token's Hobbits' have big hairy feet.
Bilbo Baggins is a Hobbit.
Bilbo Baggins has big hairy feet.

simply being logically true would mean Hobbits and Bilbo Baggins are 'real' (outside of it being just a conceptual or philosophical construct). What was it JoeMorgue said about language not creating reality? Are you sure you want to argue that it, in fact, does?

That's not even a sentence. I've not ignored anything. Once again, if the answer doesn't satisfy you, it doesn't magically cease to be an answer. You are not the arbiter of whether an answer is correct or not.

Nor are you, "the arbiter of whether an answer is correct or not" is what the facts of the situation and logic dictate.

Contradictions are unreal.
Philosophy is a mode of thinking that deals with the unreal.
Questions about contradictions are philosophical questions.

That your own assertions and some simple logic "doesn't satisfy you" is just your own problem.

Deliberate ignorance my ass. I acknowledged what you provided. It just isn't good enough, and you can't accept that. You are desperately trying to pin your inability to demonstrate the practical application of your vaunted philosophy on me. It's not my fault if you've cast your lot with sophistry rather than with reality. All you have to say is "no, actually there are no logical contradictions." and all will be over.

Of course I can accept that you don't find the answer "good enough". Heck, I eve told you that I didn't expect you would find any answer acceptable. The sophistry remains entirely yours.

How is that a logical contradiction? This is exactly like the discussion on positronium in the other thread. Sure, once two particles annihilate each other they no longer exist, and they exist just prior. There is no moment at which they both exist and don't exist. There's no contradiction.

No it is not like the annihilation of electrons and positions. In the annihilation of of electrons and positions, much as you state, they meet, annihilate and that's it. For reflective destructive interference it is continuous, as long as the source is generating, the particle motions act against each other. The particles must always be in such motion just to be able to act against each other. Also, you can vary the phase between the original and reflected wave, changing the interference. Showing that both those particle motions do still exist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It does, however, create a logical paradox, or specifically a contradiction, which get used in the ‘real world’ all the time.

No it doesn't. The fact that you can word something doesn't create reality.

"A is the largest thing is all of existence, but B is a larger than thing than A" doesn't create a real world world logical paradox.

I’ll give two examples, one hypothetical and one from ‘the real world’.

You can give as many examples as you want. It's wasting our time (which is, of course, the point) until you link them in some way beyond "because I (or philosophy) say so."

Dragons don’t exist in the real world..

Tell that to the one living in my garage.

... so any discussion or questions about dragons (like can they eat themselves while simultaneous pooping themselves out?).has to fall within a mode of discussion or questioning that need not be constrained by the real world. Like say fantasy, entertainment, philosophy or even logic. Certainly such discussions and questions can have implications to the real world. However, the situation given precludes the necessity that they must. The rhetorical trick and contradiction comes by insisting such discussions must have implications to the real world in order to simply be a question within fantasy, entertainment, philosophy or even logic. The rhetorical trick is a red herring, a means to dismiss the discussion and questions as falling within those categories despite the fact that the very assertion that dragons don’t exist, confines them to those categories.

With the assertion that contradictions don’t exist in the real world and that philosophy can consider such things, the situation is the same. Real world implications aren’t themselves precluded but any requirement that there must be such implication is. Denying that the question falls within philosophy or requiring real world implication for such, is just the same self-contradictory rhetorical trick. It’s the very assertion of non-existence that ascribes the question to that mode (philosophical) of discussion or questioning.

This is giving language waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much power and credit. Hell it's basically admitting that philosophy is just silly word games, as has been my argument all along.

Hot tip. The universe does not give one tin crap what how the third species of chimpanzee flaps their lips and tongue around to make sounds.

The mysteries of the Cosmos are not waiting to be unlocked in the dead space between ketchup and catsup, 4 fingers and a thumb vs 5 fingers, or whether Billy threw the ball or the ball was thrown by Billy.

 

[Steve]

No it is not like the annihilation of electrons and positions. In the annihilation of of electrons and positions, much as you state, they meet, annihilate and that's it. For reflective destructive interference it is continuous, as long as the source is generating, the particle motions act against each other. The particles must always be in such motion just to be able to act against each other. Also, you can vary the phase between the original and reflected wave, changing the interference. Showing that both those particle motions do still exist.

Is "positions" in that context a philosophical concept?

 

[The Man]

Einstein also famously said that he probably wouldn't have one up with the special theory of relativity if he hadn't been familiar with the work of David Hume.

Additionally, pure math is basically a type of philosophy. And ironically, pure path often ends up having applications thereby instantly moving from the realm of pure math into that of applied math.

That's the sad thing. If hadn't come across that article I still would have been think Karl Pooper was the last philosopher to make a real impact on modern science. Heck, I had come across it once and dismissed it as just philosophers choking their own chains. Later when I came across it again i noticed in the summary that it was the scientists themselves singing the praises of those philosophers.

As you and Einstein note generally the contribution is more subtle. About questioning concepts, particularly your own, making persuasive arguments and critical thinking.

 

[The Man]

Is "positions" in that context a philosophical concept?

Oh, dang nab it! Guess it must be then.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I hadn't heard of Karl Pooper.

 

[The Man]

No it doesn't. The fact that you can word something doesn't create reality.

Who said anything about it creating reality? A logical paradox specifically a contradiction, is simply a conceptual construct much like language itself.

"A is the largest thing is all of existence, but B is a larger than thing than A" doesn't create a real world world logical paradox.

You'll note the lack of the words "world world" preceding when I wrote "logical paradox".

You can give as many examples as you want. It's wasting our time (which is, of course, the point) until you link them in some way beyond "because I (or philosophy) say so."

Nope, simply a demonstration of how such conceptual and philosophical constructs do get used in the 'real world'

Tell that to the one living in my garage.


This is giving language waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much power and credit. Hell it's basically admitting that philosophy is just silly word games, as has been my argument all along.

Nope, language is a tool we use to communicate ideas and information. While you can certainly play just silly word games with it, it is not limited to that.

Hot tip. The universe does not give one tin crap what how the third species of chimpanzee flaps their lips and tongue around to make sounds.

The mysteries of the Cosmos are not waiting to be unlocked in the dead space between ketchup and catsup, 4 fingers and a thumb vs 5 fingers, or whether Billy threw the ball or the ball was thrown by Billy.

Hot tip. the 'too much power and credit' given to language you want simply to ascribe to others, as if it is them, not you, doing so, still doesn't it make it them doing so. Since language doesn't create reality, your use of it doesn't do so either.

 

[The Man]

I hadn't heard of Karl Pooper.

I insist you actively try to falsify that!!!!



Dang nab it again.

 

[Belz...]

It does, however, create a logical paradox, or specifically a contradiction, which get used in the ‘real world’ all the time.

I’ll give two examples, one hypothetical and one from ‘the real world’.

And you follow it up with unreal examples. That's marvelous. It seems that you don't understand that having a conversation in the real world doesn't make the thing you're discussing real.