Does anything exist?

[xjx388]

I didn't say it was random musings. I said that the answers are equivalent.

Is the Constitution "random musings?" Is the Medical Code of Ethics "random musings?" It's fine if you think so, but I do not.

I repeat: If I claim something "allows you to find answers" then presumably you mean in a way that's better, in some way, than random musings.

Yes I do. You think philosophy is random musings and I admit that a lot of philosophy is no more than random musings -Simulation theory, the OP question, etc. But philosophy can also be structured, coherent and lead to ideas that change the world. We've both seen it happen in our lifetimes.

"Gay people have the right to marry" is a fact. "They should have a right to marry" is an opinion.

Yes. Sloppy wording on my part. I accept your correction.

Of course it can change thigns but the fact that it was decided upon via philosophy makes no difference to that.

It makes a difference in the sense that it wasn't decided upon by science.

 

[xjx388]

And that's where we at. We have opinions that have to treated as facts (or axioms or other code words for same) because they are... pause for dramatic effect... philosophy!

You are missing the whole point of the argument.

"Gay people should be allowed to marry each other," isn't correct "because it's philosophy." It can't be argued to be correct at all in a scientific sense. It can only be argued to be "correct" if we all agree on basic ideas of human rights and we can only all agree on those things if we "do philosophy.". We can't get there by doing science. Science and philosphy, in my view, are different modalities of applying thought.

Philosopher want things that are treated as facts, yet only have to meet the intellectual standards (at best) of an opinion.

They don't have to meet the intellectual standards of anything other than the people you are trying to convince AND they are never "facts."

Everything else is just word games to keep us dancing on that line so the discussion never ends, so the discussion can be used as proof that there's some meat on the bones.

I get it. I'm never going to convince you that the idea of philosophy as a "kind of thought" has some meat on the bones. Oh well.

Philosophy is little more than the art of starting a conversation over nothing about a problem that isn't amenable to scientific inquiry, then using every possible trick in the book to keep the conversation going just long enough that it becomes self-sustaining, and then using some variation on "Oh well we're got you talking about it which proves blah blah blah." structuring your idea to solve it in a way that will hopefully convince other people that you are right.

Fixed that.

 

[Belz...]

Is the Constitution "random musings?"

For pete's sake I just told you that I didn't call them musings. Do make an effort to understand what I'm telling you.

You think philosophy is random musings

Again: If I claim something "allows you to find answers" then presumably you mean in a way that's better, in some way, than random musings.

Can you ******* read?

It makes a difference in the sense that it wasn't decided upon by science.

What difference does it make with other alternatives? If it doesn't make one, then you can't say that it has any specific utility.

 

[theprestige]

Philosophical musings aren't random, though.

 

[Belz...]

Philosophical musings aren't random, though.

Which is completely irrelevant to what I said.

 

[xjx388]

For pete's sake I just told you that I didn't call them musings. Do make an effort to understand what I'm telling you.

I'm tryin'. So just state your position clearly. The problem is that you aren't actually stating a position, you are just attacking mine. I'm left with trying to infer what you mean.

Again: If I claim something "allows you to find answers" then presumably you mean in a way that's better, in some way, than random musings.

I claim that philosophical thinking allows us to find answers to questions that are not amenable to scientific thinking AND that those answers are better than random musings.

Presumably you disagree with that?

What difference does it make with other alternatives? If it doesn't make one, then you can't say that it has any specific utility.

What other alternatives? I thought we agreed that science can't answer questions like "what rights should people have." I propose structured, rigorous thinking -philosophy- as the only other viable alternative to get workable, if imperfect, answers -a distinct alternative to "random musings," which are unstructured and ultimately lead nowhere.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At this point it's equal parts comical and trolling.

"Science can't answer X! You need philosophy to answer X!"

"Please explain how philosophy answers X. Show your work. Describe the process. Demonstrate how it is better, hell demonstrate how it is functionally different than just random guesses."

*Silence, fringe reset back to "Everything is philosophy!"*

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh by the way. "Prove to me gay people can/should get married" is scientifically answerable.

It won't be for people who think everything that isn't beakers and labcoats isn't science but sociology, psychology, and ethics aren't "unscientific" in my book.

 

[Belz...]

I'm tryin'. So just state your position clearly.

What's not clear about this:

If (someone) claim something "allows you to find answers" then presumably (that someone) means in a way that's better, in some way, than random musings.

How are the results of philosophy better than religion, random musings, or other forms of thinking or argument? You are still at square 1 here.

The problem is that you aren't actually stating a position, you are just attacking mine. I'm left with trying to infer what you mean.

That's a complete non sequitur. You don't need to infer my position. You can see it plainly in the arguments I write.

What other alternatives?

What, do you think philosophy is the only alternative to science? This would contradict your earlier claim.

I propose structured, rigorous thinking -philosophy- as the only other viable alternative to get workable, if imperfect, answers -a distinct alternative to "random musings," which are unstructured and ultimately lead nowhere.

Nonsense. Plenty of people have made fortunes with random musings, for instance. Are you saying that the answers provided by philosophy are more reliable? More accurate? More fun? More aligned with your own personal views? What?

 

[Belz...]

Oh by the way. "Prove to me gay people can/should get married" is scientifically answerable.

Pretty much everything can be answered scientifically if you define your axioms and premises correctly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Pretty much everything can be answered scientifically if you define your axioms and premises correctly.

"Why questions are just what questions badly worded."

 

[theprestige]

Pretty much everything can be answered scientifically if you define your axioms and premises correctly.

I..e.,if you start by doing a little bit of good philosophy.

But I would very much like to see Joe's scientific proof that gay marriage should be recognized. I bet you anything it starts with an arbitrary and subjective premise as its axiom, and then attempts to reason consistently from there.

 

[Belz...]

I..e.,if you start by doing a little bit of good philosophy.

Absolutely not. Stating what you believe, want or prefer is not philosophy. Stop trying to make philosophy everything!

But I would very much like to see Joe's scientific proof that gay marriage should be recognized. I bet you anything it starts with an arbitrary and subjective premise as its axiom, and then attempts to reason consistently from there.

That's what I just said in the post you quoted!! Of course you need to start with axioms. Philosophy does that too. So does religion. What are you on about?

 

[JoeMorgue]

But I would very much like to see Joe's scientific proof that gay marriage should be recognized.

I'm sure you would. And we'd be at "Okay now scientifically prove to me that suffering is bad" within ten posts. Pass.

I'm not taking that bait from a mere philosophy fanboy, so I'm certainly not taking it from a master contrarian.

If we start at "suffering is bad" you can get to any moral stance using basic reason and logic. Philosophy acts like "suffering is bad" is somehow questionable and pats itself on the back.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

But I would very much like to see Joe's scientific proof that gay marriage should be recognized. I bet you anything it starts with an arbitrary and subjective premise as its axiom, and then attempts to reason consistently from there.

I’m totally not taking that bet.

 

[xjx388]

I'm sure you would. And we'd be at "Okay now scientifically prove to me that suffering is bad" within ten posts. Pass.

I'm not taking that bait from a mere philosophy fanboy, so I'm certainly not taking it from a master contrarian.

If we start at "suffering is bad" you can get to any moral stance using basic reason and logic. Philosophy acts like "suffering is bad" is somehow questionable and pats itself on the back.

Well you did say that you could make a scientific argument didn’t you? You shouldn’t be surprised if ya gots ta show your work.

If we have to start with an opinion -a widely held opinion, granted- that can’t be scientifically proven . . . well, I think you can guess.

 

[Belz...]

Well you did say that you could make a scientific argument didn’t you? You shouldn’t be surprised if ya gots ta show your work.

If we have to start with an opinion -a widely held opinion, granted- that can’t be scientifically proven . . . well, I think you can guess.

It makes no difference what you start with. It's a premise and you can work from that.

 

[xjx388]

It makes no difference what you start with. It's a premise and you can work from that.

I think the premise makes all the difference.

“How could I go to the moon.” That’s a question that no amount of philosophical thought will answer.

“Should I go to the moon.” That’s a question that no amount of scientific thought will answer.

 

[theprestige]

I'm sure you would. And we'd be at "Okay now scientifically prove to me that suffering is bad" within ten posts. Pass.

Sometimes suffering is good, though.

 

[theprestige]

It makes no difference what you start with. It's a premise and you can work from that.

So, philosophy.