Does anything exist?

[lomiller]

What fallacy?

Affirming the consequent

I'm no expert at this, but this seems common sense. We do science because it provides us the best working model with which to view, well, everything. In what way is this ...fallacious?

Not only do I agree, I've specifically given similar reasons for why we use science and why we should use science. This is also in line with Philosophy and why it says science is valuable. Others in this thread disagree and are claiming science provides proof and truth, which is does not. Most of the last 2 days discussion center around this. eg

... she starts by immediately claiming "scientists say something exists if it is useful to explain observations", she says that is what scientists mean by "existing". OK, well that is thoroughly misleading garbage to start with - scientists do not say things exist on such a basis as that ... she is trying to dismiss and minimise what science can say about the world around us, and she is doing that as she then immediately reveals, to claim that philosophy is needed to explain what is real (not science!). If you believe this sort of internet conspiracy theory crap, then it's no wonder that you have a seriously misguided and frankly uneducated view/belief about the world.

BTW the "she" in this case is a physicist specialized in quantum gravity who has made a number of very interesting YouTube videos on a number of topics in physics.

 

[Belz...]

Science is an application of philosophy. .

Not really, though. There is a philosophy behind the methodology and the "why we should do science", but it's mainly values and what-works-ism. The philosophy that we discuss here so often has nothing to do with that; hence why we should have two terms.

 

[Belz...]

Not remotely, because we still use formal logic and reasoning today, and will continue to. Do you still check your ******* horoscope at breakfast?

Because also used reasoning and methodologies before anyone ever "formalised" it. I guess that means science is older than philosophy.

But who cares? Science works to find objective answers and philosophy cannot.

 

[Chanakya]

Affirming the consequent

Would you expand on that? I had to look that up, and apparently "affirming the consequent" amounts to assuming or claiming "If A then B", when the valid claim would be "If B then A". At least that's what the Wikipedia entry says. In what way is science based on this kind of a fallacy?

Not only do I agree, I've specifically given similar reasons for why we use science and why we should use science. This is also in line with Philosophy and why it says science is valuable. Others in this thread disagree and are claiming science provides proof and truth, which is does not. Most of the last 2 days discussion center around this...

If they have, then I guess they are mistaken. Like I'd said, it was my understanding than proofs apply to logic and math, not the real world. And science gives us best-fit models, not "truth".

(Although it isn't clear to me that that is what IanS is saying, at least in that bit you've quoted. Anyway, it wasn't my intent to wade into this Philosophy-vs-Science tug-of-war. What I was curious about was this comment of yours, that science is based on a fallacy.)



eta:

Found this article, that discusses this idea that science is based on a logical fallacy.

This seems to be the gist of their argument:

"If general relativity is true, then light of the Hyades star cluster will bend around the sun.

The light of the Hyades star cluster bends around the sun.

Therefore, general relativity is true."​

Is this the kind of thing you had in mind? I'm afraid that looks like a strawman to me. I don't think anyone is saying that relativity is "true". Only that it is the best-fit model we provisionally accept at this time.

 

[Thermal]

Because also used reasoning and methodologies before anyone ever "formalised" it. I guess that means science is older than philosophy.

Or they have worked side by side, and in conjunction. Why must it be so polarized?

But who cares? Science works to find objective answers and philosophy cannot.

Why not? A political or social philosophy can surely guide the thinking to the best conclusion yes?

Morality (+/- in the Phil department) should be a factor in solving societal ills, as it should be. Its not this raw dichotomy of "which designs a better motor?" Each has a place, and does it's job.

 

[Belz...]

Or they have worked side by side, and in conjunction. Why must it be so polarized?

You're missing the point: the contention that philosophy is the source of science is misleading and simplistic.

Why not? A political or social philosophy can surely guide the thinking to the best conclusion yes?

But not factual conclusions. That's what we're discussing.

 

[Thermal]

You're missing the point: the contention that philosophy is the source of science is misleading and simplistic.

Agreed. It is similar simplistic to keep polarizing the two intersectional disciplines.

But not factual conclusions. That's what we're discussing.

Tbf we are discussing a half dozen aspects at once.

If you limit to mundane factual conclusions, logic and reasoning win out for providing answers. That's philosophy's department. Science itself just sits there dumbly till someone with a working philosophy employs it. Science is a tool. The philosopher is the tradesman who knows what to do with it.

 

[Belz...]

Tbf we are discussing a half dozen aspects at once.

But only because the usual philosophiles expand the topic as soon as their grand claims about philosophy get trumped by facts about science.

If you limit to mundane factual conclusions, logic and reasoning win out for providing answers. That's philosophy's department.

No it isn't. Even in this scenario you will need to pair philosophy with something. By itself it provides dick-all in terms of answers. Philosophy's really more about the "should", not the "is".

Science itself just sits there dumbly till someone with a working philosophy employs it. Science is a tool. The philosopher is the tradesman who knows what to do with it.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Science is a methodology. It doesn't require the user to have a philosophy of any kind about it.

 

[catsmate]

Oh really? Oh really smart guy?

Well can your precious science tell you why a painting is beautiful!?

CAN IT!

With enough brain-probing and cerebral modelling I'm confident that the answer will be found.

 

[Thermal]

But only because the usual philosophiles expand the topic as soon as their grand claims about philosophy get trumped by facts about science.

And also because of broad brush dismissals and strawman characterizations.

No it isn't. Even in this scenario you will need to pair philosophy with something. By itself it provides dick-all in terms of answers. Philosophy's really more about the "should", not the "is".

I have no idea what you're saying here. Science is a methodology. It doesn't require the user to have a philosophy of any kind about it.

Sure it does. Crudely: I have a mouse in the house. Science provides many options to get rid of it, including limited nuclear strikes. My philosophies of humaneness, practicality, economics, etc will determine how to use the tool of science to solve the problem.

It's always, always philosophy first, to determine what to do. Then science, to determine how to do it.

 

[Belz...]

Sure it does. Friday: I have a mouse in the house. Science provides many options to get rid of it, including limited nuclear strikes. My philosophies of humaneness, practicality, economics, etc will determine how to use the tool of science to solve the problem.

There you go againl: calling everything "philosophy".

No, you're talking about VALUES, here. That's not the same thing. You value X more than Y and take the rational option to increase the odds of getting Y. That is not philosophy. That's methodology based on values.

 

[Thermal]

There you go againl: calling everything "philosophy".

No, you're talking about VALUES, here. That's not the same thing. You value X more than Y and take the rational option to increase the odds of getting Y. That is not philosophy. That's methodology based on values.

Values, yes. Axiology. Remember what axiology is a main branch of?

It's just the word "philosophy" that is setting you off and sending you scurrying after different names for the same damned thing.

 

[Thermal]

Philosophy is just a main component of how we think. Its not some freaking pox that's going to make you look effeminate in front of your lab coat buddies, or whatever you're so afraid of.

Are you so desperate to rebrand your political philosophy? Is your philosophy of self-defense so fragile?

 

[Steve]

And also because of broad brush dismissals and strawman characterizations.



Sure it does. Crudely: I have a mouse in the house. Science provides many options to get rid of it, including limited nuclear strikes. My philosophies of humaneness, practicality, economics, etc will determine how to use the tool of science to solve the problem.

It's always, always philosophy first, to determine what to do. Then science, to determine how to do it.

The tools to be considered were available before the mouse problem existed. The issue becomes a mere selection process from tools that science and engineering, not philosophy, have already provided. If "philosophy" really means "decision" then just use that word and avoid all the philosophy baggage.

 

[Thermal]

The tools to be considered were available before the mouse problem existed. The issue becomes a mere selection process from tools that science and engineering, not philosophy, have already provided. If "philosophy" really means "decision" then just use that word and avoid all the philosophy baggage.

It doesn't mean decision. In this context, it means your what you will do and why. In other words, what forms the decision. Then you can use science to create the best solution. Science can't answer how to best get rid of a mouse. It doesn't even know what "best" means till your philosophy tells it.

 

[Belz...]

Values, yes. Axiology. Remember what axiology is a main branch of?

Again, philosophy is everything.

Don't you get why this is a bad thing, linguistically speaking?

It's just the word "philosophy" that is setting you off and sending you scurrying after different names for the same damned thing.

Except that no.

Philosophy is just a main component of how we think.

Except that NO.

You can't just redefine "philosophy" to mean "everything where we think". That's not what the word means. We have a word for that already: it's "thinking".

 

[Thermal]

Again, philosophy is everything.

Don't you get why this is a bad thing, linguistically speaking?

No, it's not "everything". It's a specific part of thinking. Specific, and restricted.

I can think about all sorts of things without bringing philosophy into it. Theres a smoking hot little package in a thong bikini a few feet from where I'm working (I love beach towns in the summer). Im thinking all kinds of depraved things involving her. None are philosophical. Next I have to return to seeing if my Durabond has set up. I philosophize not a whit about it. In between, I try to remember whether I left the dog on the stove this morning. Zero axiological conundrums.

But soon I will drive home. I will in fact have to consider on the fly how much I value human life and motor vehicle citations and repairs when the tourists waddle out into the street in front of me. I may philosophize about the wisdom in sharing with my wife how I made out with the bikini chick. Philosophy is sometimes a part of thinking, and sometimes not.

 

[ynot]

Snort - Philosophy is “To boldly go where no science has gone before”, without actually going anywhere.

 

[ynot]

Philosophy is sometimes a part of thinking, and sometimes not.

What is philosophy absent thinking?

Babble perhaps?

 

[Steve]

It doesn't mean decision. In this context, it means your what you will do and why. In other words, what forms the decision. Then you can use science to create the best solution. Science can't answer how to best get rid of a mouse. It doesn't even know what "best" means till your philosophy tells it.

What I will do is make a decision based on knowledge of the practical tools already and readily available, not necessarily what I think is "best". I will not be expecting "science" to understand what I may think is best or come up with a tool based on my definition of best. Even if I were to decide what I think is best, I have no expectation that "science" will know what "best" means".

This anthropomorphizing of science by philosophers seems rather weird to me.