Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

And the same can be directed at philosophy far more pointedly because .....drum roll drum roll drum roll...logic is the cornerstone of philosophy.

But without a way to pit its ideas and conclusions against reality, it's logic might be valid but unsound, to only name a single possible issue. That "logic" is part of the deal doesn't mean it's right, or better, or whatever.

But every time we try to prod to find out exactly in what way it answers questions, for some reason it becomes either words games or semantics.

 

[Thermal]

And the same can be directed at philosophy far more pointedly because .....drum roll drum roll drum roll...logic is the cornerstone of philosophy.

Eta: if you could take your ******* fingers out of your ******* ears for 5 ******* minutes: philosophy is not in competition with science.

 

[Belz...]

philosophy is not in competition with science.

Of course not. It can't compete with it.

 

[Thermal]

But without a way to pit its ideas and conclusions against reality, it's logic might be valid but unsound, to only name a single possible issue. That "logic" is part of the deal doesn't mean it's right, or better, or whatever.

But every time we try to prod to find out exactly in what way it answers questions, for some reason it becomes either words games or semantics.

Wait a sec. We were in +/- agreement a couple pages ago. My position hasn't changed, but now you are digging in against it. Did you have an epiphany or something?

 

[Thermal]

Of course not. It can't compete with it.

Nor does it purport to, even conceptually.. So why keep bringing it up? It's irrelevant.

 

[Thermal]

You're missing the point: how do you tell one from the other? Science has a pretty good way to toss out bad theories. How about religion? Philosophy?

I do not care how religion plays out with its supernatural directions.

Try your premise out on political philosophy. How does science determine a form of government?

And before you say I'm ducking your question, I have asked you since the single digit pages about it and you, to paraphrase another poster, suddenly have to go wash the dog.

 

[theprestige]

But every time we try to prod to find out exactly in what way it answers questions, for some reason it becomes either words games or semantics.

I'm pretty sure you've been told repeatedly the way in which it answers questions: By reasoning consistently from an assumption to rational conclusions from that assumption. It's very similar to science in this regard, except that it tends to deal with starting assumptions in problem spaces that science can't touch. Ethics, for example. Government, for another. Crime and punishment, for yet another.

---

An aside for Thermal and others: It's no accident that natural philosophy is called such. Science is really just the branch of philosophy that deals with reasoning from assumptions about objective facts. (And of course you have to do some philosophy just to get to the point of having things you call objective facts.)

 

[Thermal]

I'm pretty sure you've been told repeatedly the way in which it answers questions: By reasoning consistently from an assumption to rational conclusions from that assumption. It's very similar to science in this regard, except that it tends to deal with starting assumptions in problem spaces that science can't touch. Ethics, for example. Government, for another. Crime and punishment, for yet another.

---

An aside for Thermal and others: It's no accident that natural philosophy is called such. Science is really just the branch of philosophy that deals with reasoning from assumptions about objective facts. (And of course you have to do some philosophy just to get to the point of having things you call objective facts.)

I know, but we are still working foundationally. Some posters here are pulling way ahead into refinements of the argument. JM is saying it doesn't even exist, or is everything and therefore meaningless. Belz... Is saying...well everything under the sun, good, bad, and indifferent.

 

[xjx388]

I can't say I'm surprised that philosophy just became everything again, just as we're showing you that you have no means to tell me how it's more suited to answering non-scientific questions than its alternatives.

Par for the course.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of gotcha or that I'm trying to hide something. I'm not. I've said from the get-go that, in essence, there are two modalities of thinking we use to solve problems/answer questions: scientific and philosophical. So uh . . . yeah: Everything that isn't science is, indeed, philosophy. But no, not everything is philosophy. Biology is science; ergo, not philosophy.

Religion is not science, so it's philosophy. I don't see religious thinking as any different from philosophical thinking.

Philosophy (religious philosophy, even) is more suited to answer non-scientific questions because science cannot answer non-scientific questions. There is no other alternative to philosophy than science.

 

[Belz...]

Wait a sec. We were in +/- agreement a couple pages ago. My position hasn't changed, but now you are digging in against it. Did you have an epiphany or something?

Sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean, "digging in against it"? What position? Have I ever said anything that would contradict the post you quoted?

I do not care how religion plays out with its supernatural directions.

Then do you disagree with those who have claimed that philosophy gives better results than the alternatives? Or do you not care about the question?

Try your premise out on political philosophy. How does science determine a form of government?

Who ever said that it does? Maybe you have me confused with another poster?

If you want to apply scientific principles to that question, you'll have to ask it more precisely, e.g. providing what you consider to be a good government, its goals, etc. And then you can look at various forms of government and how they reach those goals, in measurable ways. But let's not kid ourselves: in the end the decision will be based on values, not facts. Humans are, after all, humans.

 

[Belz...]

By reasoning consistently from an assumption to rational conclusions from that assumption.

That's interesting. You seem to be doing the opposite of the others, here, instead narrowing philosophy down until it's synonymous with logic. Is it? I wouldn't think so.

It's very similar to science in this regard, except that it tends to deal with starting assumptions in problem spaces that science can't touch. Ethics, for example. Government, for another. Crime and punishment, for yet another.

Science definitely can touch those.

An aside for Thermal and others: It's no accident that natural philosophy is called such. Science is really just the branch of philosophy that deals with reasoning from assumptions about objective facts.

Does anyone call it that anymore? I'm not sure an argument based on a definition to the same word from centuries ago is particularily useful.

 

[Belz...]

Philosophy (religious philosophy, even) is more suited to answer non-scientific questions because science cannot answer non-scientific questions. There is no other alternative to philosophy than science.

Only because you've redefined philosophy to include religion and, now, everything that's not science. But careful, theprestige has hinted that science is a form of philosophy, so that screws up your last sentence there.

And I don't think any meaningful question is beyond the scope of science, so long as (here's that dangerous word) the axioms are well-established.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Does anyone call it that anymore?

No. They call it science.

 

[theprestige]

That's interesting. You seem to be doing the opposite of the others, here, instead narrowing philosophy down until it's synonymous with logic. Is it? I wouldn't think so.

Already addressed. Philosophy is applying logic to non-objective assumptions to reach rational conclusions from them.

Philosophy is important, and has practical applications, because we have non-objective questions that we would like to have consistent answers for. Like crime and punishment, for example.

And personally I'd prefer to start with something narrow and see if we can agree on it, rather than trying for broad agreement about stuff you won't even acknowledge is worth discussing.

 

[Belz...]

Philosophy is applying logic to non-objective assumptions to reach rational conclusions from them.

That'd be a great definition, if it hadn't been mentioned (and debated) already that logic is a branch of philosophy, rather than an essential tool of it. I hope you see my frustration when it's so hard to pin down what the topic of discussion actually is.

Philosophy is important, and has practical applications

Of course.

 

[The Man]

You really are incapable of using any rhetoric except "no, you" are you? Did you not learn anything about how to debate since you were eight?

I didn't use it, again simply you're rhetoric, simply your problem.

What I said here...

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

No problem.

I also gave you an example of a macro world self-contradiction. Reflected waves out of phase canceling themselves. The waveform, in the media, must exist to cancel itself yet doesn't exist because it cancels itself. You can demonstrate this for yourself with some simple apparatus.

Nope, its a contradiction because the particle motions oppose each other. Now one could say that it is an example of a contradiction (A & ~A) that results in the original waveform being false (doesn't exist) as the energy of the original waveform would mostly be dissipated as heat. Though the philosophical term for something that fails reach a state of existence would be 'fails to obtain'. As in 'fails to obtain a state of existence'. Conversely 'obtain' would be the assertion of something that does reach a state of existence.

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.

Interpretations of quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparisons


Your turn.

...was "Your turn" and not rhetoric but a request, again, for you to actually support your claim before by simply adhering to your own assertion that you would as quoted above.

Of course you will. As soon as I started picking apart your claims, you decided to make it about me, focusing on childish games, including projection, in order to distract from the conversation. What's sadder is you know full well that the distraction isn't working, but you're so immature that you have to keep going because you're committed to not admitting to being wrong. I don't expect you to change your act; it's all you have to avoid getting back to the point, where you're doing pretty badly.

Nope, not about you, but about your claims, that you still are unwilling or simply unable to support.

Any time you want to demonstrate where the contradiction actually is, feel free.

Already did that.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13558534&postcount=1831

By all means, please, support your claims or come up with some relevant criticisms you are able or just willing to actually support.

 

[xjx388]

That'd be a great definition, if it hadn't been mentioned (and debated) already that logic is a branch of philosophy, rather than an essential tool of it.

Por que no los dos? I don't see a problem with the idea that philosophers developed logic as a tool for their philosphizin'.

 

[theprestige]

That'd be a great definition, if it hadn't been mentioned (and debated) already that logic is a branch of philosophy, rather than an essential tool of it. I hope you see my frustration when it's so hard to pin down what the topic of discussion actually is.

Having given it a lot of thought the past few days, I've come to the conclusion that this frustration is entirely a you problem. Most of the rest of the participants in this thread don't seem to be having much trouble understanding each other and reaching an amicable consensus about what we're talking about. And it's increasingly clear that despite all our best efforts, neither you nor Joe will ever get the answers you want, and will never be a part of this consensus or the conversations arising from it. Can you think of any reason why we should re-hash the same tired arguments one more time?

 

[Belz...]

I didn't use it, again simply you're rhetoric, simply your problem.

You're joking right? You're doing it right there!

Nope, not about you, but about your claims, that you still are unwilling or simply unable to support.

Like you, I'm too lazy to go back to find that post in the thread. Unlike you, I don't consider it more important than the actual topic of the thread.

Already did that.

Nope. None of that explains in what way it's a contradiction. I've already addressed all of that, so you'll have to come up with new words rather than links to earlier posts, I'm afraid.

 

[Belz...]

I don't see a problem with the idea that philosophers developed logic as a tool for their philosphizin'.

I don't, either, because I'm using a sensible definition of all these words. The problem isn't on my side.

I see you're simply not addressing the other definitions I allude to in my post.

Having given it a lot of thought the past few days, I've come to the conclusion that this frustration is entirely a you problem. Most of the rest of the participants in this thread don't seem to be having much trouble understanding each other and reaching an amicable consensus about what we're talking about.

This has to be a joke. No two people in this thread defending philosophy has said the same thing. They're all over the place. Just a few minutes back I complained about two contradictory explanation of the role of logic in philosophy. It's one of a dozen such issues with the definitions and explanation given in this thread, to say nothing about the lack of specifics or demonstrations of claims.

Just because you generally agree with my 'opponents' here doesn't make their disparate claims and utterances somehow right on average.