Does anything exist?

[IanS]

Some subjects can admit of equivalent opinions, where there can be two or even multiple opinions, all of them right, or at least none of them more right than others. While there are other subjects where things are a bit more black and white than that.

Although the OP started out on a different tack, but what this thread has in effect devolved into is an examination of the question, Does philosophy have any actual use? I don't see why that question cannot have a Yes/No resolution. If you're saying Yes, then, as some have demanded, the thing to do is to show some actual use. Else the No would carry the day.


Basis this thread, and given my own limited understanding, it is the No that seems to be carrying the day so far. Except in one instance, which would be the multiple kinds of logic. As far as that last, the issue seems to be tilting towards the opposite end. At least basis my admittedly limited understanding.

Individual scientists may or may not have the hots for philosophy. But the question itself seems quite cut and dried. (By that I don't mean it is a simplistic question. It can potentially become a very involved discussion. To some extent it already has. But it would, it seems to me, end up admitting of some unequivocal answer, that can be summarized in a simple Yes or No.)

Just on the highlighted part – much earlier in the thread, I said that in the time of the famous Greco-Roman period of philosophy (roughly 600BC to about 400AD, ?), philosophy & philosophers clearly did have a use, because along with religion, philosophers were providing what most educated people of the time believed to be good explanations for important things happening in the universe around them all. And, as with much of religious belief, those things that were being explained, were things that directly affected the daily lives of most people (eg, why did the crops grow or fail, why was there thunder, lightening, floods, disease … what were the lights in the night sky, and what role did they play for the fortunes of everyone, etc.).

But does philosophy still have that same important role today?

I think the answer has to be “No!”. Because much of that role has been taken away by answers from science. And a very important part of that, is that the answers which we have found from science, are not only very different (in most cases) from what had been believed from earlier philosophy, but they are also far more convincing (eg as a result of actual physical testing and confirmation).

To that extent, ie to the extent in which science has dealt with the same issues as philosophy had historically done, I think philosophy no longer has that use … or at least not in any direct or significant sense or degree.

Whether or not philosophy (by which I always mean the academic university subject … or in the more ancient past, I mean the work of historically famous philosophers) has some other significant use, I really do not know … because I have never studied those other branches of philosophy. But, from all of the very many threads that we've seen on forums like this where philosophy has been that subject of argument over what actual meaningful use it now has, I've yet to see any truly convincing argument or explanation from the philosophy side to show that it does still have some properly important uses. And in saying that, I mean that as a subject which is taught at degree level and at PhD research level, with professors of philosophy being paid a generous lifelong salary to teach and research that subject, it's use must be more than merely something of interest, and it must be providing answers that cannot be just as easily obtained either by other academic subjects or in fact just by virtue of any educated people thinking about the various topics and trying to find logical reasonable explanations for themselves. IOW – it cannot be just a subject which poses questions for people in other subjects (such as posing questions for science), and it cannot be a subject which just presents so-called conundrums or linguistic paradoxes etc., … because all sorts of other people, in all sorts of walks of life, can equally well think of those things themselves and decide for themselves what they think the answers should be, or indeed decide for themselves whether the questions are really worth the time of day to bother with any more.

To summarise some of that – I'm prepared to believe that Philosophy does still have some significant use/value. But I'm yet to see any really clear example of that either from people posting on forums like this, or indeed from any of the numerous philosophers who have tried to defend their subject in YouTube debates/discussions.

 

[IanS]

No, he isn't wasting everyone's time.

You know, in this debate --- although I haven't posted much because I didn't have much to contribute that others, including you, hadn't already said, and probably said better than I myself could --- I myself happen to be firmly on the side that you are championing. Nevertheless, I find your attempts to condescend to Thermal pretty much irritating.

And your comment about arrogance is ironical, to say the least. There is no need whatsoever to use this discussion as an excuse to **** on people. You're ending up scoring own-goals here.


They can, and they do, yes.

OK, well that's your opinion. Though I'm not sure that it's either a fair opinion, or one that's based on you having read all the posts in this thread. However -

- when I said that Thermal was wasting everyones time, I was responding specifically to his accusations that I had said or that I had implied that his self stated “personal philosophy” of self defence, must have come from him listening to boxers being interviewed on TV programmes … I'm, saying to him that he is wasting everyones time with accusations like that, because I never said or implied any such thing (and I've explained that in at least 3 posts now, so I won't go over that again).

As for being “condescending” towards Thermal, or towards anyone else here, or in any way making personalised derogatory responses to them – I absolutely never do that, unless the other poster has already directed such personalised remarks at me. You will search in vain, if you try to find me ever doing that without the other poster initiating such exchanges. However, if other posters do try that personalised abusive type stuff, then eventually I will reply usually in kind. So that's the “philosophy” there (calling it “philosophy” was a joke, just to be clear).

On the accusation of “arrogance”. I'm probably one of the least arrogant people you are ever likely to meet (and that is not itself an "arrogant" statement, really!). But I can see where you might get that impression of arrogance … though really specifically, only when we are talking about science … because that happens to be something that I do actually know about … and eventually in threads like this it becomes irritating, as well as highly misleading, when certain posters who clearly know very little about science in the sense of them having ever worked in research or ever studied at that level, write here as if they were experts. If you think it's arrogant to try explaining to them why their beliefs are wrong, then I think you are mistaking my genuine attempts at explaining things, for “arrogance” … and if you look back at those posts and how they began, I think you will always find that they started out with completely neutral non-personalised replies purely trying to give a useful, detailed, careful, honest explanation … purely to help clarify things.

Anyway – that's all I am ever trying to do when writing replies on this forum, ie trying to learn from what others have posted, and trying to help others who may learn things from what I have posted. That's all.

 

[Minoosh]

How can someone be hostile towards something that they say doesn't exist?

Cancel culture?

 

[Minoosh]

If people here have been saying that philosophy does not exist, then I must have missed their posts (which is entirely possible over the last few pages where I think the thread has become bogged down in disputes about what anyone means by words like "logic", and where I stopped reading most of those posts).

Numerous times when someone uses the term philosophy to describe their outlook, they're told that's not a philosophy, it's an outlook or a way of thinking. I've no objection to this usage of "philosophy" when it's a near synonym.

What we should really mean by "philosophy", is what the people who lecture university courses mean by "philosophy" - and almost by definition what they mean is the stuff they teach on degree courses in "Philosophy".

Who says that's what we "should mean"? Words have multiple meanings. I think much broader usage is acceptable.

The problem in this thread has been that philosophy proponents/supporters tried to claim that philosophy, ie the academic subject, is really responsible for whatever science has achieved … because (according to them) philosophy came first and science was (so they claim) born out of philosophy (or even saying that science is merely a part of, or branch of, philosophy).

Is that what people in this thread are claiming?

But all of that aside, I'm glad to see that you appreciate why there's a problem with people describing things like self defence or politics as a “personal philosophy”

There's not generally a problem but sometimes there is an ambiguity. It's the ambiguity that's the problem; I have no quarrel with the terms "political philosophy." People employ this usage all the time, who aren't science-bashers or professors of philosophy.

My philosophy re: this kind of thread is that when two sides are talking past each other on purpose, it's probably best to lurk (at most) and let them have at it. But, sometimes I'm tempted to chime in anyway.

 

[Belz...]

Numerous times when someone uses the term philosophy to describe their outlook, they're told that's not a philosophy, it's an outlook or a way of thinking. I've no objection to this usage of "philosophy" when it's a near synonym.

As I said before, it's because participants here are using two different definitions of the word. But "philosophy can answer questions that science can't" implies, to me, the more narrow definition. But every time we try to pin that down, it transforms into the broader one, for some reason.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So this is, what, the 10th person who's come into the discussion who's entire argument is "How can you say that? You're doing philosophy!"

 

[IanS]

Numerous times when someone uses the term philosophy to describe their outlook, they're told that's not a philosophy, it's an outlook or a way of thinking. I've no objection to this usage of "philosophy" when it's a near synonym.

I would not normally object to it in everyday conversation either. I might think it's a bit of a grandiose way of someone describing their beliefs &/or ideas about things. But I would not particularly object.

But there is an important difference here in an internet thread where various posters have said and/or implied that science owes a direct historical debt to philosophy, that science was the product of philosophy, and that philosophy must take some (or even all!) of the credit for what science has achieved. When posters make claims like that, they are definitely talking about academic philosophy as practiced by famous philosophers of the past (and probably also a few of the present, eg teaching in universities) ... they are not talking about their own personal interests, ideas & pursuits as a "philosophy" that gave birth to science.

Who says that's what we "should mean"? Words have multiple meanings. I think much broader usage is acceptable.

I am saying that is what we should mean by "Philosophy". And the explanation/reason for that is actually given by what I just said directly above ... please have a look at that to save me typing it all out again in different words.

Is that what people in this thread are claiming?

Yes! That is what people have said, and/or implied, and we have been through that several times before in this thread, so I am not going to go through it again. But it's also part of people here saying or implying that all constructive thought/reasoning is actually “philosophy”, which is also something that has happened numerous times here.

There's not generally a problem but sometimes there is an ambiguity. It's the ambiguity that's the problem; I have no quarrel with the terms "political philosophy." People employ this usage all the time, who aren't science-bashers or professors of philosophy.

My philosophy re: this kind of thread is that when two sides are talking past each other on purpose, it's probably best to lurk (at most) and let them have at it. But, sometimes I'm tempted to chime in anyway.

The reason it's a problem in this thread is that whether or not someone decides to describe their ideas & interest in politics as their own “personal philosophy”, is because that is not what we are objecting to when anti-science claims (for want of a better description) are being made to say that philosophy is historically responsible for science, such that philosophers today can tell scientists what they should do, and tell them what is valid or not valid in their science research.

If you go to a university philosophy dept and you say that you are particularly interested in politics, they may well say to you that they have course modules in “the philosophy of politics”; and they will likely say that you should be sure to take those particular courses. But if you then tell them that you have your own “personal philosophy of politics” and you want to pursue that, then they will undoubtedly tell you that, that is not the way politics as an established academic discipline works!

 

[Chanakya]

Just on the highlighted part – much earlier in the thread, I said that in the time of the famous Greco-Roman period of philosophy (roughly 600BC to about 400AD, ?), philosophy & philosophers clearly did have a use, because along with religion, philosophers were providing what most educated people of the time believed to be good explanations for important things happening in the universe around them all. And, as with much of religious belief, those things that were being explained, were things that directly affected the daily lives of most people (eg, why did the crops grow or fail, why was there thunder, lightening, floods, disease … what were the lights in the night sky, and what role did they play for the fortunes of everyone, etc.).

But does philosophy still have that same important role today?

I think the answer has to be “No!”. Because much of that role has been taken away by answers from science. And a very important part of that, is that the answers which we have found from science, are not only very different (in most cases) from what had been believed from earlier philosophy, but they are also far more convincing (eg as a result of actual physical testing and confirmation).

To that extent, ie to the extent in which science has dealt with the same issues as philosophy had historically done, I think philosophy no longer has that use … or at least not in any direct or significant sense or degree.

I agree, IanS.

Whether or not philosophy (by which I always mean the academic university subject … or in the more ancient past, I mean the work of historically famous philosophers) has some other significant use, I really do not know … because I have never studied those other branches of philosophy. But, from all of the very many threads that we've seen on forums like this where philosophy has been that subject of argument over what actual meaningful use it now has, I've yet to see any truly convincing argument or explanation from the philosophy side to show that it does still have some properly important uses. And in saying that, I mean that as a subject which is taught at degree level and at PhD research level, with professors of philosophy being paid a generous lifelong salary to teach and research that subject, it's use must be more than merely something of interest, and it must be providing answers that cannot be just as easily obtained either by other academic subjects or in fact just by virtue of any educated people thinking about the various topics and trying to find logical reasonable explanations for themselves. IOW – it cannot be just a subject which poses questions for people in other subjects (such as posing questions for science), and it cannot be a subject which just presents so-called conundrums or linguistic paradoxes etc., … because all sorts of other people, in all sorts of walks of life, can equally well think of those things themselves and decide for themselves what they think the answers should be, or indeed decide for themselves whether the questions are really worth the time of day to bother with any more.

To summarise some of that – I'm prepared to believe that Philosophy does still have some significant use/value. But I'm yet to see any really clear example of that either from people posting on forums like this, or indeed from any of the numerous philosophers who have tried to defend their subject in YouTube debates/discussions.

Once again, I agree, more or less.

Like you, I too don’t know nearly enough about philosophy to hold a confident opinion on this on my own steam. And, like you, what I’ve seen here leads me to believe, tentatively, that, unless clearly shown otherwise, it might make sense to hold a qualified belief that philosophy does not have any real-world use any more. (And I put in all those qualifiers only to account for my own lack of first-hand familiarity with this fairly vast subject.)

-------

Except for one thing that came up in this thread itself. Again, that too is a subject I’m not conversant with, to the extent that I hadn’t even heard of this before having come across this here: but the many different types of logic --- logics, plural, as the two posters holding forth on it used the word --- would indeed appear to have real-world applications, for instance in fuzzy logic and AI. (I’m basing this on what they’ve said here, without any independent knowledge of this other than what they’ve posted.)

-------

And one other opinion that I’ve arrived at, after going through this thread, is as follows. (And this opinion I haven’t heard anyone else voice, and is my own, which makes it a very tentative opinion indeed, given my admitted ignorance of things philosophical.)

Leave aside what philosophy did 1000+ or 2000+ years ago, that’s ancient history, like you rightly say. But if we limit ourselves only to the last 100 years or so, then we see that philosophy gave us useful refinements to the scientific method (Popper’s falsifiability). Having done that, philosophy’s now redundant, as far as science, as far as I can tell. Then again, philosophy gave us logic. But having done that, apparently advanced logic, that is of actual use to us in the real world (as in fuzzy logic and AI), has advanced so far that apparently philosophy has again become redundant, as far as logic.

My point is, philosophy seems able to give us such proto-disciplines, that subsequently outstrip the reaches of philosophy when they actually develop enough to be of real use to us. The question therefore arises, might there be other such developments in philosophy, such proto-disciplines in the making, that may yet give us full-fledged disciplines that might be of use to us? I don’t know nearly enough of philosophy to present any opinion on that myself, and I’d say that without clear demonstration it is reasonable not to claim any more such proto-disciplines in the making; nevertheless, I do think that a detailed examination of philosophy might be called for, specifically from that perspective, and by people who are familiar with the kind of work that is currently being done in that field, before we actually throw it in the garbage bin.

 

[Lithrael]

I think it’d be more accurate to say philosophy can discuss things science can’t address. It doesn’t look to me like philosophy can answer questions. What it can do is lay out compelling arguments.

And, relevant to Chanakya’s post there, it can raise interesting questions. Which might later turn into science whenever we can figure out how to get at them.

 

[Belz...]

I think it’d be more accurate to say philosophy can discuss things science can’t address. It doesn’t look to me like philosophy can answer questions. What it can do is lay out compelling arguments.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Chanakya]

I think it’d be more accurate to say philosophy can discuss things science can’t address. It doesn’t look to me like philosophy can answer questions. What it can do is lay out compelling arguments.

And, relevant to Chanakya’s post there, it can raise interesting questions. Which might later turn into science whenever we can figure out how to get at them.

In essence, yes.

But the point I was getting at --- which no doubt you appreciate, but just to make fully clear --- the discipline of Philosophy, as actually studied today, might actually have already raised such specific questions, and raised them to a sufficient degree of refinement, so that we can identify specific instances where, in the next ten or twenty or fifty years, we might find new disciplines blossoming, that do have real-world uses.

Is that actually the case? I myself don't know. Only someone fully familiar with the work actually being done currently in Philosophy can answer that (or one us might, if we took the trouble to so familiarize ourselves).

And if the answer happens to be a Yes, then that, right there, would be an actual use that the study of Philosophy has. Which is what this thread is about (or at least, what it has long been about, the OP notwithstanding).



eta: And absolutely, should some Philosopher type come along and tell us that Yes, that's exactly what's happening, then we wouldn't take him at his word. He'd have to actually show us what those potential proto-disciplines are, and why exactly he thinks they're promising. It just seems to me that to summarily reject this possibility without actually investigating this --- and on that basis to conclude that Philosophy as a discipline is entirely worthless as far as real-world applications --- seems short-sighted, and fallacious even.

 

[The Man]

In essence, yes.

But the point I was getting at --- which no doubt you appreciate, but just to make fully clear --- the discipline of Philosophy, as actually studied today, might actually have already raised such specific questions, and raised them to a sufficient degree of refinement, so that we can identify specific instances where, in the next ten or twenty or fifty years, we might find new disciplines blossoming, that do have real-world uses.

Is that actually the case? I myself don't know. Only someone fully familiar with the work actually being done currently in Philosophy can answer that (or one us might, if we took the trouble to so familiarize ourselves).

And if the answer happens to be a Yes, then that, right there, would be an actual use that the study of Philosophy has. Which is what this thread is about (or at least, what it has long been about, the OP notwithstanding).



eta: And absolutely, should some Philosopher type come along and tell us that Yes, that's exactly what's happening, then we wouldn't take him at his word. He'd have to actually show us what those potential proto-disciplines are, and why exactly he thinks they're promising. It just seems to me that to summarily reject this possibility without actually investigating this --- and on that basis to conclude that Philosophy as a discipline is entirely worthless as far as real-world applications --- seems short-sighted, and fallacious even.

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.

To summarize:

Conceptual Clarification and Stem Cells.

An apparently unnamed philosopher (simply noted as “one of us”) has clarified the definition of properties relating to the “stemness” of cells. Categorizing them based on the type of tissue.

Stem cell and cancer biology researcher Hans Clevers notes that this philosophical analysis highlights important semantic and conceptual problems in oncology and stem cell biology; he also suggests this analysis is readily applicable to experimentation (2). Indeed, beyond conceptual clarification, this philosophical work has real-world applications as illustrated by the case of cancer stem cells in oncology.

The article then goes on to note the application to dug targeting stating..

In practice, this framework has led to the investigation of cancer therapies that combine the targeting of intrinsic cancer stem cell properties, their microenvironment, and immune checkpoints to cover all possible kinds of stemness (3).

Further the article notes the application of the same philosophical framework to the study of organoids.

Immunogenicity and the Microbiome.

In this case it was a philosophical critique of the immune self–nonself framework that has led to two significant scientific contributions. Noting that further the critique contributed to changing the notion of an organism “being a genetically homogenous self” indicating a more “symbiotic integration and immune tolerance approach to an organism’s interaction with microbes.

Influencing Cognitive Science.

This section speaks to the contribution of philosophy to theories of the mind, noting..

Philosophy had a part in the move from behaviorism to cognitivism and computationalism in the 1960s. Perhaps most visible has been the theory of the modularity of mind, proposed by philosopher Jerry Fodor (10). Its influence on theories of cognitive architecture can hardly be overstated. In a tribute after Fodor’s passing in 2017, leading cognitive psychologist James Russell spoke in the magazine of the British Psychological Society of “cognitive developmental psychology BF (before Fodor) and AF (after Fodor)” (https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/jerry-fodor-1935-2017).

Philosophy and science share the tools of logic, conceptual analysis, and rigorous argumentation. Yet philosophers can operate these tools with degrees of thoroughness, freedom, and theoretical abstraction that practicing researchers often cannot afford in their daily activities.

It further notes that while Fodor’s theory has been, “revised and challenged, researchers continue to use, tweak, and debate his approach and basic conceptual toolkit.”

The next part of this section goes on to assert that “The false-belief task constitutes another key instance of philosophy’s impact on the cognitive sciences. Philosopher Daniel Dennett was the first to conceive the basic logic of this experiment as a revision of a test used for evaluating theory of mind, the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others (13).”

The false-belief task

Later noting how Philosophy has helped the cognitive sciences shed problematic and outdated assumptions driving change.

Philosophy and Scientific Knowledge.

This last section deals more generally with the contribution of philosophy to the sciences. Most notable giving recommendations to “help bridge the gap between science and philosophy.”.

 

[The Man]

For pete's sake, that was not about your knowledge at all. It was about your unwillingness to answer my challenge at the time. You are conflating things. You keep asserting that you are "using my own assertions" against me but you can't even get those assertions and arguments right.

Who said anything about 'my knowledge'? Here was your “challenge at the time”

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

Now, at least then you had the honesty, apparently, to admit you might not be correct in your assertion that I contradicted myself, hence the inclusion of “I think”. However, since I had not contradicted myself your only “challenge at the time” was for me to try to figure out what you were thinking. When I noted that, you replied by simply denying what you said and claiming I was lying.

I have been discussing this issue honestly and rationally. So those "other words" are entirely yours. You said you were going to wait for me to figure out what you were thinking. I figured when you had waited as long as suited you, you might try discussing it, if that is what your wanted.

See my point about honesty? That's not what I said at all. You are lying.

For “pete’s” and everyone else’s sake, do try to move your augmentation, at least, somewhere near the honest end of the spectrum.

I am always honest.

An amusing philosophy, to say the least.

Point to one dishonest thing I have said here. You can't. Meanwhile, you persist in mischaracterising what I say. At first I thought it was just poor reading comprehension or attention, but as you insist on doing so, I find myself far less charitable.

I did, before and again above. It is not your charity that is being refuted.

And then I asked you for a demonstration that those work in real life, and then you answered with rhetorical tricks that result in contradictions. Hardly an indication of a working philosophy.

Actually what you asked for next was...

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

To which I also responded in the affirmative and stated that, for the example given, it would be a presupposition, much like them being mutually exclusive is in classical logic.

Prior to your assertion of your "first direct answer", you asserted this..

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.

That “two-bit philosophers can construct a sentence that is logically contradictory” means that at the very least “the very idea of logical contradiction is philosophical in nature”.

Then it's pointless. An exercise is mental masturbation. The whole point of the discussion about the usefulness of philosophy is whether it produces real world results. And yet you are still discussing theoreticals.

Theoreticals are how we make sense of "real world results". They are the foundations of science.

I have done no such thing. As I told you earlier, you are confused by simple language. The very fact that you think an incorrect or disbelieved answer is not an answer says a lot.

Sure you did, you were a bit more subtle about it for awhile, not specifically using the word "answer" in the second part of your assertion. Basically it was clear from the start that you were trying to use two different meanings of the word answer. Answer as simply a response or acknowledgment and answer as a solution or resolution. The former your agree to the latter you do not, I was just waiting to see if it was deliberate and I don't think it was.

If a response is incorrect or disbelieved (as such) then you can't be agreeing that it was an actual response to your question.

Pretty much what you were asserting at first when you said my response 'wasn't an answer'. Even when you portrayed it a a response to some other question about the fact that people can write nonsense. Eventually, however, you did accepted it as simply a response.

If a solution is incorrect or disbelieved (as such) then you can't be agreeing that it was an actual solution to to your question.

What you've probably meant to say was...'The very fact that you think an incorrect or disbelieved solution is not a response says a lot'.

Now, normally I wouldn't be inclined to believe that simply acknowledging having been given a response (answer) to question was a big deal. However, given your proclivity to just ignore stuff. Well, we've got to take what advancements we can.

Hint: learn to read.

Hint: learn to understand what you write.

Not any more than one person thinking Jazz is great music and another thinking Jazz is crap. You'll have to make a more robust demonstration of this claim.

I did, I posted links and spoke about the implications, however your deliberate ignorance of what has been posted is yours to indulge in as you see fit.

For others, sorry, I was going to explain the links in a bit more detail but basically just ran out of time.

Hello quantum world! Google publishes landmark quantum supremacy claim

That is an article on Googles experiment in quantum supremacy. Using Qbits and quantum computing to do something the best current classical super computer couldn't complete for 10,000 years.

I'll see if I can track down the actual paper to post later


Sorry the second article I posted before should have been this one, about the actual experiment.
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

This has to do with the thought experiment of Wigner's friend^WP actually being done.

A link to that paper..

https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080

Both have implications to the quantum state vector being in two opposing sates at one time. It's the basis of the operating principle behind the experiments.

I'd only become aware of theses in the past week or so. Now the 'Wigner's friend' paper is still undergoing peer review and the google experiment needs independent verification (repeatability). Given the current problems with error correction in quantum computing it may be some time. One of the criticisms of google, that the should have focused on experiments to improve error correction instead of using resources jumping right to a splashy quantum supremacy experiment.

Again, this is only a contradiction because you're playing with words.

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.

For JoeMorgue, again the reason for the difference in terminology is specificity and avoiding ambiguity. It distinguishes the state of existence of such events in the 'real world' from those of the purely conceptual constructs such as those "theoreticals", "rhetorical tricks that result in contradiction" and even the ascriptions of 'True' and 'False' themselves.

 

[IanS]

I agree, IanS.





Once again, I agree, more or less.

Like you, I too don’t know nearly enough about philosophy to hold a confident opinion on this on my own steam. And, like you, what I’ve seen here leads me to believe, tentatively, that, unless clearly shown otherwise, it might make sense to hold a qualified belief that philosophy does not have any real-world use any more. (And I put in all those qualifiers only to account for my own lack of first-hand familiarity with this fairly vast subject.)

-------

Except for one thing that came up in this thread itself. Again, that too is a subject I’m not conversant with, to the extent that I hadn’t even heard of this before having come across this here: but the many different types of logic --- logics, plural, as the two posters holding forth on it used the word --- would indeed appear to have real-world applications, for instance in fuzzy logic and AI. (I’m basing this on what they’ve said here, without any independent knowledge of this other than what they’ve posted.)

-------

And one other opinion that I’ve arrived at, after going through this thread, is as follows. (And this opinion I haven’t heard anyone else voice, and is my own, which makes it a very tentative opinion indeed, given my admitted ignorance of things philosophical.)

Leave aside what philosophy did 1000+ or 2000+ years ago, that’s ancient history, like you rightly say. But if we limit ourselves only to the last 100 years or so, then we see that philosophy gave us useful refinements to the scientific method (Popper’s falsifiability). Having done that, philosophy’s now redundant, as far as science, as far as I can tell. Then again, philosophy gave us logic. But having done that, apparently advanced logic, that is of actual use to us in the real world (as in fuzzy logic and AI), has advanced so far that apparently philosophy has again become redundant, as far as logic.

My point is, philosophy seems able to give us such proto-disciplines, that subsequently outstrip the reaches of philosophy when they actually develop enough to be of real use to us. The question therefore arises, might there be other such developments in philosophy, such proto-disciplines in the making, that may yet give us full-fledged disciplines that might be of use to us? I don’t know nearly enough of philosophy to present any opinion on that myself, and I’d say that without clear demonstration it is reasonable not to claim any more such proto-disciplines in the making; nevertheless, I do think that a detailed examination of philosophy might be called for, specifically from that perspective, and by people who are familiar with the kind of work that is currently being done in that field, before we actually throw it in the garbage bin.

OK, well we are obviously agreeing on pretty much all of the above. Though as far as Logic is concerned, I think that is nowadays more the province of Maths as a subject (rather than philosophy). That is - if you really want to study mathematical elements of what's called "logic" (as distinct form logic being about avoiding things like contradictions or tautologies etc.), then you take a maths course in the maths dep't ... you do not enrol for a philosophy course. And as with science, I think maths has being moving away from it's earlier roots in philosophy, for several centuries now ... for almost as much time as science has, eg as I said earlier Galileo described himself (iirc ... but I can look it up if necessary) as "philosopher, mathematician and astronomer" ...

... the only reason philosophy has anything to do with science or maths at all, is that it came thousands of years before anyone had clearly defined maths and science as separate subjects with their own very precise specific methods. IOW - 2500 years ago certain people (mainly the wealthy & privileged who did not have to work for a living) were trying to think deeply about the world around us, and part of their thoughts and ideas can be recognised now with hindsight as early simple steps towards science and towards more formal maths ... but that's really the connection that philosophy has to science and even to maths, and it's simply historical, ie the result of anyone trying to think about and explain the world around us.

But what subsequently happened is that those areas of philosophy became much more formalised, and gave rise to what are now regarded as two quite different subjects in science and maths. They are no longer part of philosophy, eg in the sense that you certainly do not go to a univ philosophy dept if you want to study science or maths ... and the reason why you do go to study science or maths is that you want to understand the true answers that explain what we perceive as "Reality" ... you want to discover what the real explanation is for everything in this universe around us ... you do not go to the philosophy dept any longer for that (or if you do, then you have made a mistake lol, and you will not discover real answers to questions about "reality").

But I think that's also the explanation why philosophy appears to give us what you call Proto-disciplines, in the sense of starting the ideas … you do not need academic philosophy courses (degrees and Phd's) to do that, and you do not need university professors of philosophy etc. All that we are talking about there, as far as I can make out, is anyone having ideas about how to approach any sort of problems, with ideas about the best ways to solve the problems … and people from every walk of life and every academic discipline, do that all of the time (it happens particularly of course in science, where the methodology can be and often is applied to any sort of problem ... ie you look for a scientific way of doing things) … people do not need any academic philosophy courses to do that, and indeed it's probably a far worse approach than using science or maths anyway ...

… in that sense it looks to me as if what now passes for philosophy in academia, is more about the history of what philosophy had done in the distant past, and far less about what genuine role it still has in the world today … philosophers are trying to make it look as if it's still relevant and important enough to be maintained as a funded academic subject, but it looks to me like it's a subject more about the history of what we call “philosophy”, rather than a subject which can still claim to be the way to solve actual problems in the world in a way that actually helps us all learn about the universe around us (with all of the vast benefits that have now arisen from that sort of deep understanding of everything around us).

That's a long way of saying - I think philosophy has lost it's former importance. And that role is now taken over by science and maths.

 

[Belz...]

Who said anything about 'my knowledge'?

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

An amusing philosophy, to say the least.

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

I did, before and again above.

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.

Actually what you asked for next was...

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.

Theoreticals are how we make sense of "real world results". They are the foundations of science.

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.

However, given your proclivity to just ignore stuff.

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.

I did, I posted links and spoke about the implications, however your deliberate ignorance of what has been posted is yours to indulge in as you see fit.

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.

Nope, its a contradiction because the particle motions oppose each other.

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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

Oh no, you see young grasshopper the "Wise Old Man On the Mountain" is just "Socraticially" acting dense and pretending to not get it in order to lead you into a Eureka moment when you realize "Wax On, Wax Off" is really a masterful blocking technique.

Again a concept I keep return to is that "Philosophy" isn't a methodology or a discipline or anything else people are pretending it is. It's a persona. It's a character. It's a set of skits. A pre-planned set of trap questions/response loops memorized by people.

 

[IanS]

I think it’d be more accurate to say philosophy can discuss things science can’t address. It doesn’t look to me like philosophy can answer questions. What it can do is lay out compelling arguments.

And, relevant to Chanakya’s post there, it can raise interesting questions. Which might later turn into science whenever we can figure out how to get at them.

Unfortunately I have to say that I don't think that stands up to scrutiny either.

What are these things that science could not address? That point has come up here at least half a dozen times, and I've explained at least 6 times why I think it's clearly wrong to imagine that there things which are somehow beyond the reach of any scientific approach to understanding them. In all of these threads, still I have yet to see an even remotely credible example of things that could not be studied scientifically ... for many things a more rough-&-ready approach might be sufficient ... and for some things there are simpler methods that work pretty well ... but that's very different from believing that such things are somehow inherently beyond any possibility of scientific study.


As for interesting questions - scientists, whatever they are studying, can think of the interesting questions for themselves. They don't need philosophers to tell them what to do. On the contrary, research scientists usually have a vast extent of detailed knowledge and information long before any philosophers are even aware of it, so that scientists in a far better position to ask (and answer) all the most important & interesting questions even before any philosophers knew that such questions could exist! So I don't think science or any other discipline needs philosophers to tell them what questions to ask or what to do ...

... and in any case, it is hardly a credible field of degree and doctorate level study if a subjects main claim to usefulness is merely to ask questions of people in entirely different fields! That's not a credible basis for an academic subject.

 

[JoeMorgue]

How philosophy "addresses" things science can't has not once been explained.

This is just God of the Gaps again except "god" is some incredibly vague, inconsistently applied, poorly defined "way of thinking."

 

[LarryS]

Oh no, you see young grasshopper the "Wise Old Man On the Mountain" is just "Socraticially" acting dense and pretending to not get it in order to lead you into a Eureka moment when you realize "Wax On, Wax Off" is really a masterful blocking technique.

Again a concept I keep return to is that "Philosophy" isn't a methodology or a discipline or anything else people are pretending it is. It's a persona. It's a character. It's a set of skits. A pre-planned set of trap questions/response loops memorized by people.

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

I rest my case.