Does anything exist?

[The Man]

I'm not sure what your purpose is in this thread any more. It just seems to be the same old attempt from philosophy fans to argue indefinitely.

Well, I wouldn't call people ignoring what was posted, ignoring references to their own posts, simply repeating demands, trying to limit scopes to just their preference, attacking positions not asserted or even explicitly denied, making up numbers, then not caring about numbers to again just make the same claim even the made up numbers did not support, as actually arguing.

10,000 papers, or however many it may be, is certainly a significant number. It does not matter how many more are published in the much wider field of subject areas that now have the word "science" in their title. The question was - what percentage of those papers in core fundamental science do you think (or claim) are from philosophers showing how they have obtained new results that are important to science?

"certainly a significant number." compared to what? You can assert anything you want with made up numbers compared to nothing. As noted, philosophers don't generally do experimentation so such papers would generally be coauthored by a scientist(s) providing the data. Or as we saw before some paper in a philosophical journal being cited in a scientific paper. Unfortunately, near as I can tell, systems aren't set up to do such kinds of searches. Heck, if I actually were some kind of 'philosophy fan', I'd probably know of some off hand or at least the best authors/areas to search.

It has to to be new" results, otherwise you would not normally get the paper accepted for publication. So what's your answer? ... what is the percentage? ... afaik the percentage is miniscule. In which case philosophy is not making a significant contribution to that central fundamental area of science.

My answer is I don't know and, as noted before, that evidently even most scientists aren't "making a significant contribution to that central fundamental area of science".

Then you said that fundamental areas of science such as QM, Relativity, Evolution, Big Bang and Universe formation/existence are actually an area of philosophy that you just said was "Oncology"!!?? What ??? .... I suppose you meant "ontology" .... but the explanations that we have for all of that, has all come from science ... and it's all published in the science research literature, published by people named as & employed as "scientists" ... NOT philosophers.

Yep, ontology, apologies, auto correct gets me again.

The explanations that we have discovered and explained in the detailed way we have it all today, are from science, not from any ancient philosophy. If you dispute that, then you must produce all the papers from philosophers showing how in fact they discovered and described things like QM, Relativity, Big Bang, Evolution etc., and showing how no scientists discovered any of that. Please produce the philosophy papers that explained all of that before any scientists did.

If you cannot produce all the supposed philosophy research papers which showed philosophers discovering and explaining all of those areas of core fundamental science, then you have no case at all to argue that philosophy made a significant contribution to our accurate understanding of any of that.

Where are all these philosophy papers please?

Do not bother telling me anything else. Just produce the papers which show that philosophers not scientists, actually discovered and explained the “reality” of the universe as we now understand it from discoveries like QM, Realtivity, Big Bang, Evolution etc.

Oh, it's no bother.

Again the point wasn't that it was done by philosophers but that the scientists were doing philosophy. As again, the only differences in the interpretations is fundamentally philosophical. Again something even noted in the video you posted.

An article in Scientific American by Carlo Rovelli, an Italian theoretical physicist and a founder of of loop quantum gravity theory. It's a bit long but in it he directly addresses the assertions of Weinberg, Hawking and Neil de Grasse Tyson concerning philosophy. As well as asserting that physicists need to discuss with philosophers just to help make sense of all the various implications of even just his own area, loop quantum gravity.

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics

 

[Belz...]

As I said, had it been brought up I would have addressed it then.

I know what you said, but you're wrong, since you didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

Again simple language seems to confuse you greatly. You're confusing formal systems with science. I guess you read that pretty quickly.

Again, simply because you disagreed with the interpretations.

You can repeat it a thousand times and it will not make it true. If you would provide the interpretations I might have something to disagree or agree with, but you know you have nothing, so you don't.

 

[theprestige]

If by you’ve explained you mean “fundamental answers to the nature of the universe around us” That’s actually oncology a branch of metaphysics and thus philosophy.

While I am sympathetic to the idea that philosophy is cancerous, I think you meant "ontology".

 

[Jimbo07]

While I am sympathetic to the idea that philosophy is cancerous,

One might argue that a bunch of internet babbling, the electronic equivalent of late night drunk debating, isn't exactly philosophy, though...

 

[theprestige]

One might argue that a bunch of internet babbling, the electronic equivalent of late night drunk debating, isn't exactly philosophy, though... ; )

That's exactly what philosophy-cancer would argue!

 

[The Man]

I know what you said, but you're wrong, since you didn't.

Then, show where.

Again simple language seems to confuse you greatly. You're confusing formal systems with science. I guess you read that pretty quickly.

Nope, read it all, and had already learned it, when I learned digital logic back in the early 80’s (the 8088 micro chip had just came out) TTL logic , the same type of logic in microprocessors (just a crap load of really, really, really small transistors). Dual in line chips were still predominant in most instrumentality at the time. While we used the 8088 processor in learning and programmed a hero robot. A lot of the projects and tests we did were with those DILC components. Logic isn’t only a science (even if you want to define science as only empirical science, the natural sciences in the link I posted), since basically mechanical and vacuum tube computing (had to learn vacuum tubes as well) but it is also a technology. That you are using now!


That’s why computer systems crash or have error sates, conflicting information. People don’t, well they can, but illogic is just part of being human. We can deal with it more easily, as I have noted before. So, just as logic is part of the universe. Illogic must be as well or we would be just like those systems that just can’t deal with it easily. As I noted before illogic has practical benefits in our approaches to the real world. Basically, cuts down processing time and enables us to deal, more readily, with incomplete and inconsistent information.

You can repeat it a thousand times and it will not make it true. If you would provide the interpretations I might have something to disagree or agree with, but you know you have nothing, so you don't.

Again, I gave you an interpretation of reflective sound cancellation and then gave you an opposing interpretation. Again, that sound can cancel on reflection is a fact. The interpretations, on the other hand, can be argued, as I said. Just like the interpretations of quantum mechanics, they all have to deal with the same empirical results but just interpret them in different ways. That’s subjective and not objective, and as I have said, thus philosophical. Now if you want to talk about A and ~A in the quantum realm, that’s a whole ‘nother (but much smaller) ‘ball of wax’.

 

[The Man]

While I am sympathetic to the idea that philosophy is cancerous, I think you meant "ontology".

We’ve done that.


However, given the paper cited and discussed to cancerous stem cells. Even for the biologists in those papers. ‘Stemness’ (how cancer cells develop into new tumors) has a dependence on the surrounding environment.

One might argue that a bunch of internet babbling, the electronic equivalent of late night drunk debating, isn't exactly philosophy, though...

A robust environment, indeed.

 

[Belz...]

Then, show where.

Sure thing, as soon as you show me those "interpretations" you keep babbling about.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Philosophy is not essential to fundamental science and can be entirely ignored.

Philosophy is a requirement for navigating human existence, which spans the physical space of science and the conceptual space of knowledge, art and culture. Human language is the primary tool joining both, which as first example shows how easily confusion between the tangible and the imaginary can arise, such as in the case of taboo words, the most famous in Western culture being the name of a deity.

One might map conceptual space in various ways. Some are fascinating or beautiful, such as how abstract art might bring concept into tangible being, or how photography might map concepts onto otherwise realistic images to evoke emotion or reflection. In general, human culture "rains" artifacts into objective reality, technology and architecture being obvious cases. A related but more problematical mapping involves cultural artifacts, which are the real results of fancy, such as cinema, but also religion.

Religious artifacts, as in the general case of cultural items, can introduce a fatal course of reasoning, such that by aping science in observing that "there is phenomenon x" to state a fact, those assigning import to cultural artifacts may improperly assign some made-made or ideated "x" the weight of a natural event; i.e. "proof of god" and so forth, "just like in science". Here lies the brutal mistake that leads so many to feel religion has a demonstrable relation to the natural world, and therefore authority in speaking about it.

Then there is the realm, ahem, skeptics should command, but do not. Namely, the conceptual space consisting of normative behavior, including not just morals/ethics, but law and political philosophy. My view is that one might take as starting premise some observation from science to then build a set of principles and arguments which -- this being the punchline -- must be logical and fairly consistent to achieve the desired predicable results in governing human endeavor.

So, yes, why not, all leading to my grudge with fast and loose, untethered right-wing/libertarian blather, which fails no matter which part of conceptual space one might be navigating, and is blind to physical reality whenever required or convenient.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Philosophy is to sense-making as science is to theorizing, only covering more ground.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philosophy is to sense-making as science is to theorizing, only covering more ground.

Yeah we've been told some new version of this exact same claim about a billion times in this thread alone.

We then ask "How. How does philosophy do this? I can explain how science does what it does; it's methods, it's processes, it's standards, how it can be done wrong, how it corrects for mistakes. I can explain how science does science. Now please explain how philosophy does philosophy" and then all the philosophy defenders suddenly realize they forgot to wash the dog and make a run for the door and don't answer, then a few pages later the exact same claim is made and the process repeats.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Yeah we've been told some new version of this exact same claim about a billion times in this thread alone.

We then ask "How. How does philosophy do this? I can explain how science does what it does; it's methods, it's processes, it's standards, how it can be done wrong, how it corrects for mistakes. I can explain how science does science. Now please explain how philosophy does philosophy" and then all the philosophy defenders suddenly realize they forgot to wash the dog and make a run for the door and don't answer, then a few pages later the exact same claim is made and the process repeats.

This was an addition to a fully explanatory post just preceding it, thus justified beforehand. Your rant is out of place. Oops!

 

[JoeMorgue]

This was an addition to a fully explanatory post just preceding it, thus justified beforehand. Your rant is out of place. Oops!

I read the preceding post. It was lacking.

Just the 4,567th attempt to go "Science can tell you how to put out a fire, but you need philosophy to tell you standing in a fire is a bad idea" nonsense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again I will ask, again I will be ignored.

Philosophy defenders give me an actual real work example of philosophy failing THAT didn't just create a new, alternative, equally valid form of philosophy.

 

[Belz...]

I read the preceding post. It was lacking.

Just the 4,567th attempt to go "Science can tell you how to put out a fire, but you need philosophy to tell you standing in a fire is a bad idea" nonsense.

"Only philsophy can respond to and with nonsense."

 

[Chanakya]

(...)An article in Scientific American by Carlo Rovelli, an Italian theoretical physicist and a founder of of loop quantum gravity theory. It's a bit long but in it he directly addresses the assertions of Weinberg, Hawking and Neil de Grasse Tyson concerning philosophy. As well as asserting that physicists need to discuss with philosophers just to help make sense of all the various implications of even just his own area, loop quantum gravity.

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics

This was an interesting read. Thanks for posting.

He seems to be making two points, one of which I'm myself not very sure about, while the second might make for interesting discussion.

(1) He suggests that Philosophy might help physicists with both creativity in their thinking as well as help them avoid unexamined biases in their general assumptions. While that may be true, that seems to address the same old use of generalists' contributions, not specifically philosophy's constribution. (That is, a physicist who is cocooned within his particular specialization can benefit from generalist inputs, regardless of whether that happens by other generalists stepping in or by this same physicist broadening his reading and understanding; but I don't see that that speaks particularly to Philosophy, it might cover any and every thing, including other sciences, as well as something as apparently trivial as science fiction.) What I'm saying is, we've still not seen a case made for philosophy specifically, as far as this aspect of his argument.

(2) He also suggests that philosophy might help make sense of QM. This is the part that I believe might make for interesting discussion, should those whose familiarity with QM goes beyond just casual general reading like to step in. I mean, "shut up and calculate" seems like a very unsatisfactory approach, generally speaking; but firstly, is there actually any way out of this unsatisfactory approach at all, that is, is it even possible to actually interpret the math of QM in terms of "reality"; and secondly, is Philosophy actually somehow uniquely equipped to do that? (I guess if someone claims that it does, then they'll need to demonstrate how exactly it does that. This article claims it does, but does not actually demonstrate how.)

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Read the post you've yet to read before embarrassing yourself further.
***
I believe I have easily shown that conceptual space is larger than physical space. The latter is the main, but not sole domain of science; social sciences deal with the measurable events and artifacts resulting from human endeavor. These may be motivated by reason or fancy; regardless, science may track and study them. I believe it is also self-evident that human endeavors involving, for example, social interaction and governance are not the result of the workings of physical sciences, unless we wish to argue for superdeterminism, a topic which, unsurprisingly, would take us into philosophy and science.

Superdeterminism aside for the moment, we have the realm of what I like to call, though it may have a better name already, preferential reasoning. The prime and easy example is -- the name being well-deserved -- political philosophy. More broadly, as intelligent social animals as well as apex predators, the question does often arise, "How, then, shall we live?"

On that, any descriptive body of knowledge has no say, yet answers are needed. This is the realm of philosophy. I might go on as to how philosophy can more easily deal with the remnants of religious absolutism remaining in science, such as anyone calling him/herself a scientist and yet still being uncertain about handling "all swans are white"-type problems. Or that it is useful to remind even the most data-driven economist the meaning and import of ceteris paribus, or the line between description and prescription, one crossed by Marx and today's MBA theorists alike on an everyday basis. Model gazing, another common pastime, is perhaps yet another ill those with a broad view of human knowledge might advise of. And so on.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I read the preceding post. It was lacking.

Just the 4,567th attempt to go "Science can tell you how to put out a fire, but you need philosophy to tell you standing in a fire is a bad idea" nonsense.

I see you make no argument, and forget a part of science, linguistics, which happens to involve navigating the concepts and dimensions of meaning, an endeavor which has as requirement understanding the entities and references of both the real and the imaginary. See also the post above this.

What, say, is your political philosophy based on? How is it argued? Upon what foundation is it built, and what is the sole way in which such a foundation can claim validity?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

"Only philsophy can respond to and with nonsense."

Bring it, when, and if, you can.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I see you make no argument, and forget a part of science, linguistics, which happens to involve navigating the concepts and dimensions of meaning, an endeavor which has as requirement understanding the entities and references of both the real and the imaginary.

More "Everything is a type of philosophy!" gotcha theatrics.