Does anything exist?

[The Man]

You're just repeating what I just said, after saying "no". You continue to insist that I "don't seem" to have taken the first answer as true when in fact I said so right off the bat and followed it with a question. This is just silly word games by you. It's amazing that you're spending more time arguing about whether I've accepted an answer provisionally when I'm already two or three questions later, than actually answering the important questions. Move on.

Nope, what you said was "It's trivially true that one can accept an answer for the sake of argument without agreeing with it, and then ask further questions based on that." What I said was "accepting for the sake of argument means you will be holding the argument as TRUE for argumentation. That is, honestly, auguring from the position that it is TRUE to see where it goes." If you are asking questions based on your continued lack of agreement then you are not actually holding the argument as TRUE for the sake of argumentation.

If A and ~ A being mutually exclusive is a question of philosophy is the important question and the only one at hand. Great, you want to claim you are accepting that as true for the sake of argument, then let's hear your best argument for why it must be true.

I've asked you in what way it's a contradiction, and I'm still waiting for you to actually demonstrate your claim. You expect me to just take your word for it, but you'll forgive me if you've not earned my trust to that extent.

You asked and I told you, you asked for an explanation and I gave it, you asked again in what way it's a contradiction and I told you again. Then you asked for an explanation again. At that point I told you, you can continue that loop as much as you want or ask something new. I have explicitly told you not to take my word, but to look to the experts yourself and I don't give a crap if you trust me or not.

 

[The Man]

Since ‘assume for the sake of argument’ seems to be giving you so much trouble I’ll repeat one I did before then expand upon it. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that both contradictions and philosophy are entirely without any real world application. Now let’s make an argument from those assumptions.

Contradictions have no real world applications

Philosophy deals only with things that have no real world applications

Questions of contradictions are questions of philosophy.

You’ll note what I didn’t do was deny or try to refute what was accepted for the sake of argument. What would deny those assumptions would be insisting that contradictions being a question of philosophy must have real world applications.

Try it another way, let’s assume for the sake of argument that both contradictions and philosophy both can have real world applications.

Contradictions can have real world applications

Philosophy deals with things that can have real world applications

Questions of contradictions are questions of philosophy

Unlike above where real world applications are specifically precluded, here they are not. However, like before the insistence of real world application for the inference, is again precluded.

Third and the only one that makes real world applications a requirement for the inference is if we assume for the sake of argument that both contradictions and philosophy must always have real world applications.

Contradictions always have real world applications

Philosophy deals with things that always have real world applications

Questions of contradictions are questions of philosophy

A lack of real world applications to such a question of philosophy about contradictions would refute one or both of the premises. Negating the conclusion that followed. I have yet to see anyone here even assert just one of those premises as true, let alone both.

For a while I thought you might have been deliberately trying to take a dialetheisic approach. By requiring real world applications to something you generally assert need not have any (philosophy) Which is why I have said you were making the demonstration yourself. Even though it doesn’t appear to be deliberate it, doesn’t change the lack of real world requirements for the inference for the assertions about contradictions and philosophy that have been made on this thread nor does it change the premises needed to be held as true to have such a requirement for the inference.

 

[Belz...]

Nope

It doesn't matter how many words you write about how "yes" means "no". I asked a question. You answered it and I followed up on it. For some reason you think that's moving the goalposts. I can't teach you the basics of conversation.

If A and ~ A being mutually exclusive is a question of philosophy is the important question and the only one at hand.

And you've done a magnificent job of proving that it isn't. You can't explain how something you think is a contradiction is a contradiction. I therefore conclude that the answer to my original question is really "no".

 

[The Man]

It doesn't matter how many words you write about how "yes" means "no". I asked a question. You answered it and I followed up on it. For some reason you think that's moving the goalposts. I can't teach you the basics of conversation.

No one asked you to.

And you've done a magnificent job of proving that it isn't. You can't explain how something you think is a contradiction is a contradiction. I therefore conclude that the answer to my original question is really "no".

Hardly surprising, given that was and remains simply your original conclusion to your original question. That the question itself wasn't actually relevant or important to how logic and philosophy have become more independent, was half the point. Again, why I said it was an ill formed question in response to a ill formed argument.

 

[IanS]

Since ‘assume for the sake of argument’ seems to be giving you so much trouble I’ll repeat one I did before then expand upon it. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that both contradictions and philosophy are entirely without any real world application. Now let’s make an argument from those assumptions.

Contradictions have no real world applications

Philosophy deals only with things that have no real world applications

Questions of contradictions are questions of philosophy.

Contradictions can have real world applications

Philosophy deals with things that can have real world applications

Questions of contradictions are questions of philosophy
.

Why are contradictions "questions of philosophy"? Why do we need an academic subject of "Philosophy" to recognise or understand what a "contradiction" is?.

Philosophers of the past may have written all sorts of articles & essays etc. about statements which they think are "contradictions", and that probably included examples which they thought were less obvious and not so easy for people to spot as actually being "contradictions" ... but we surely don't need an entire academic degree subject just to make us aware of things like that ... most of us can see perfectly well when two or more statements are in contradiction with one-another ... and those other people who cannot easily spot the contradictions, are probably not the sort of people who are going to take a philosophy course to remedy their lack of insight.

Why do we need to take philosophy degrees in order to recognise when two or more statements are in contradiction with one-another? And if we can have "philosophy" without the degree courses and without studying the books from famous ancient philosophers, then it sounds as if we are again getting dangerously close to the claim that all constructive thinking is "philosophy".

 

[Belz...]

No one asked you to.

I'd charge you.

Hardly surprising, given that was and remains simply your original conclusion to your original question.

Yeah, because I've already considered and debated this issue many times in my life, and people like you never manage to demonstrate that claim. It's not may fault if you don't have the facts on your side.

It's amusing that you think being correct is somehow a flaw, but I expect nothing else from philosophiles.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's amusing that you think being correct is somehow a flaw, but I expect nothing else from philosophiles.

It's not even that. They act like factual correctness is somehow "beneath" them, as if detaching their thoughts from any anchor of reality elevates them to some higher level of thinking an our concern with "facts" is almost pedestrian.

 

[Belz...]

It's not even that. They act like factual correctness is somehow "beneath" them, as if detaching their thoughts from any anchor of reality elevates them to some higher level of thinking an our concern with "facts" is almost pedestrian.

And yet I'd bet money that they still get out of the way of cars, when walking.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not even that. They act like factual correctness is somehow "beneath" them, as if detaching their thoughts from any anchor of reality elevates them to some higher level of thinking an our concern with "facts" is almost pedestrian.

And yet I'd bet money that they still get out of the way of cars, when walking.

 

[Robin]

We can't tell if anything exists or not.

If there was nothing at all then there would be no logic. Without logic then the fact that there was something would not prove that there was something.

But then again, if there was no logic then this argument itself wouldn't make sense.

Which it doesn't.

Therefore there is nothing.

And don't get me started on Wookies.

 

[The Man]

Why are contradictions "questions of philosophy"? Why do we need an academic subject of "Philosophy" to recognise or understand what a "contradiction" is?.

Fundamentally because consistent logic , by axiom, can’t ask that question or explore such contradictions. Now as I mentioned before with recent experiments it may be a question of physics as well but the jury is still out on those experiments.

Further it is specifically the classification of both contradictions and philosophy given by some posters here that makes the logical inference of one to the other valid. They’ve made their own beds, "questions of philosophy" wise that is.

Finally if we consider that the question are A and ~A mutually exclusive can not be a question of philosophy, then what mode of thinking must the question be asked within and why would philosophy be excluded. Now one might claim that one can’t even ask the question in reality or that it has no use in reality. However, it was really asked and was really being used to make a point.

Philosophers of the past may have written all sorts of articles & essays etc. about statements which they think are "contradictions", and that probably included examples which they thought were less obvious and not so easy for people to spot as actually being "contradictions" ... but we surely don't need an entire academic degree subject just to make us aware of things like that ... most of us can see perfectly well when two or more statements are in contradiction with one-another ... and those other people who cannot easily spot the contradictions, are probably not the sort of people who are going to take a philosophy course to remedy their lack of insight.

Again simply another example that people generally don’t think in terms of strict consistent logic. So those philosophers would have been exploring organized approaches closer to human thinking than to strict consistent logic. Such inconsistency tolerant logics or thinking may be better suited to not only understanding just human thought in general (Philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology) but also say AI or even quantum computing.

Why do we need to take philosophy degrees in order to recognise when two or more statements are in contradiction with one-another? And if we can have "philosophy" without the degree courses and without studying the books from famous ancient philosophers, then it sounds as if we are again getting dangerously close to the claim that all constructive thinking is "philosophy".

Well, certainly not to simply recognize when two or more statements are in contradiction, you don’t. However, it isn’t about simple recognition but exploration. Again something simple strictly consistent logic or thinking can’t do. Now, certainly one may not even need any degree courses or studying the books from famous ancient philosophers to organize their thinking or get them to more accurately consider thinking other than strictly their own. Just the necessities of life and human interaction can do that. I’ve never taken a course or even cracked a philosophy book, just read an article or so here or there. However, having a dedicated academic field to that affect can be beneficial as the articles linked before demonstrate. In particular those sub-fields of the broader academic field of philosophy. Perhaps even helping some get a leg up in those considerations without having to go the longer life experience route.

“Experience is the worst teacher it gives the test before presenting the lesson.” Vernon Sanders Law

I certainly wouldn’t consider all constructive thinking as "philosophy". As a product designer, and later a mechanical engineer, I had to take my own concepts and literally construct something real from them. "Philosophy" never entered my thinking during any of that and still generally doesn’t. Heck, while I also have no use of yoga, a motorcycle mechanic, meditation, HVAC service personnel, religion, potato and macaroni salad or semiotics. However, I don’t begrudge those people that do have uses of such, or even organize classes and create schools to teach and learn such things, same with philosophy.

 

[The Man]

I'd charge you.

Wait, you’d charge someone because you were not asked to do something you claim you can’t? Good luck with that.

Yeah, because I've already considered and debated this issue many times in my life, and people like you never manage to demonstrate that claim. It's not may fault if you don't have the facts on your side.

It's amusing that you think being correct is somehow a flaw, but I expect nothing else from philosophiles.

The facts remain that if one considers contradictions to have no real world applications and philosophy to not necessarily have any real world applications then the inference is both valid and precludes a requirement for such real world applications of that question of philosophy . It’s not anyone’s fault but your own that you can’t seem to use the very simple yet consistent logic the law of non-contradiction requires.

Again you make the demonstration yourself. By requiring what your asserted position precludes. You are using a contradiction to rationalize an irrational conclusion based, evidently, simply on your disdain for philosophy.

"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal" Robert A. Heinlein

 

[The Man]

It's not even that. They act like factual correctness is somehow "beneath" them, as if detaching their thoughts from any anchor of reality elevates them to some higher level of thinking an our concern with "facts" is almost pedestrian.

And yet I'd bet money that they still get out of the way of cars, when walking.

So, is that it, that a philosopher once ran over your pet(s)?

 

[Chanakya]

Why are contradictions "questions of philosophy"? Why do we need an academic subject of "Philosophy" to recognise or understand what a "contradiction" is?.

Philosophers of the past may have written all sorts of articles & essays etc. about statements which they think are "contradictions", and that probably included examples which they thought were less obvious and not so easy for people to spot as actually being "contradictions" ... but we surely don't need an entire academic degree subject just to make us aware of things like that ... most of us can see perfectly well when two or more statements are in contradiction with one-another ... and those other people who cannot easily spot the contradictions, are probably not the sort of people who are going to take a philosophy course to remedy their lack of insight.

Why do we need to take philosophy degrees in order to recognise when two or more statements are in contradiction with one-another? And if we can have "philosophy" without the degree courses and without studying the books from famous ancient philosophers, then it sounds as if we are again getting dangerously close to the claim that all constructive thinking is "philosophy".

Both in this comment, IanS, as well as elsewhere upthread, I think you are conflating two separate discussions.

To be clear, this is not necessarily to disagree with what you are saying. As far as the first of those two, I am, in fact, inclined to agree with you, albeit my agreement would be more qualified and more tentative than your ironclad certainty. And as far as the second discussion, while I believe there's a great deal to be said on both sides of the issue, nevertheless in sum I expect I might end up agreeing with at least some portions of your argument (or at least, the kind of argument that I expect, basis what you've said thus far, that you might put up).

In fact, if people are interested in taking this forward, then this thread might rightly head off into two separate discussions, perhaps in two separate threads:

1. Does philosophy, in this day and age, contribute anything to our knowledge of reality?
   
   We've been having this discussion on general terms in this thread. I think a more rigorous discussion around this would require the participation of people with more specialized knowledge of what is actually taught today in universities and what kind of research actually happens today in philosophy (or for people here to take the trouble to find out).
   
   
   
2. Does it make sense to teach philosophy in universities, and award the whole string of degrees in it, right from undergrad courses up to doctoral and post-doctoral?
   
   This is a more open-ended subject, probably necessitating a broader discussion off a broader base. Some of those bases might be:
   
   (a) What exactly should be taught in universities, with degrees et cetera?
   
   (b) For instance, literature. You can get undergraduate degrees, right through to post-grad "research", in literature. If you can do that, why not with philosophy?
   
   (c) So, should literature be taught at all, formally that is? After all, to extend your argument about philosophy, we can all study literature, if we are so inclined, and come to our own conclusions about what we read. Do we really need formal doctoral degrees (or for that matter undergrad courses) in literature?
   
   (d) What about its utility? We're discussing what utility philosophy might have? What utility does a subject like literature have?
   
   (d) What about other soft subjects like, I don't know, art?
   
   (e) Rather than outright black and white, rather than outright "yes, let's keep teaching philosophy, as we are doing now" and outright "no, let's abolish all philosophy courses, and, at best, relegate them as a subset of historical studies", might it make sense to go for something of a halfway house? Might there be a case to restrict public funding to "useful" subjects, that do have a bearing on our actual lives --- like the sciences, and technology, and math? As well as, I don't know, law, maybe? That is, to purely utilitarian subjects? And leave the other subjects (that are not utilitarian) to be taught, whether formally or otherwise, to those who are willing and able to finance their study themselves?

 

[IanS]

Fundamentally because consistent logic , by axiom, can’t ask that question or explore such contradictions. Now as I mentioned before with recent experiments it may be a question of physics as well but the jury is still out on those experiments.

Further it is specifically the classification of both contradictions and philosophy given by some posters here that makes the logical inference of one to the other valid. They’ve made their own beds, "questions of philosophy" wise that is.

Finally if we consider that the question are A and ~A mutually exclusive can not be a question of philosophy, then what mode of thinking must the question be asked within and why would philosophy be excluded. Now one might claim that one can’t even ask the question in reality or that it has no use in reality. However, it was really asked and was really being used to make a point.




Again simply another example that people generally don’t think in terms of strict consistent logic. So those philosophers would have been exploring organized approaches closer to human thinking than to strict consistent logic. Such inconsistency tolerant logics or thinking may be better suited to not only understanding just human thought in general (Philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology) but also say AI or even quantum computing.




Well, certainly not to simply recognize when two or more statements are in contradiction, you don’t. However, it isn’t about simple recognition but exploration. Again something simple strictly consistent logic or thinking can’t do. Now, certainly one may not even need any degree courses or studying the books from famous ancient philosophers to organize their thinking or get them to more accurately consider thinking other than strictly their own. Just the necessities of life and human interaction can do that. I’ve never taken a course or even cracked a philosophy book, just read an article or so here or there. However, having a dedicated academic field to that affect can be beneficial as the articles linked before demonstrate. In particular those sub-fields of the broader academic field of philosophy. Perhaps even helping some get a leg up in those considerations without having to go the longer life experience route.

“Experience is the worst teacher it gives the test before presenting the lesson.” Vernon Sanders Law

I certainly wouldn’t consider all constructive thinking as "philosophy". As a product designer, and later a mechanical engineer, I had to take my own concepts and literally construct something real from them. "Philosophy" never entered my thinking during any of that and still generally doesn’t. Heck, while I also have no use of yoga, a motorcycle mechanic, meditation, HVAC service personnel, religion, potato and macaroni salad or semiotics. However, I don’t begrudge those people that do have uses of such, or even organize classes and create schools to teach and learn such things, same with philosophy.

Well .... to me the above seemed to be as much of a highly tangled mass of obtuse verbiage, as it was distinctly unconvincing.

You appear to be claiming that educated people in the 21st century cannot tell what what statements are in contradiction with one-another unless people with philosophy degrees and doctorates point it out to them. And I don't see any evidence support any claims like that.

If you are talking about people without degrees and doctorates and who have not learned their "philosophy" from those with the degrees and doctorates, then the point is that you are just using your own ideas and beliefs and calling that "philosophy" ... which as I said before, is then getting into the sort of claims that say all constructive thought is philosophy.

Very few scientists have philosophy degrees. And afaik, very few have ever taken any significant courses in philosophy. Are you really trying to tell me that those scientists cannot tell when there are contradictions in their interpretations of their own results? How many of the tens of thousands of reserach papers published in core science every year, do you think are flawed by "logical contradictions"? The answer, to save you the bother of even thinking about it, is effectively "None" ...

... if you are not talking about educated people, then uneducated people might make all manner or mistakes in what they think or believe to be true or logical. But they are also the group least likely to be consulting philosophy books or university courses to put that right!

Long, long ago in the ancient past, in a pre-scientific age, people who considered themselves relatively well educated, or who considered themselves wealthy and wishing to spend more of their leisure time educating themselves, they might at that time have benefitted from all sorts of things that philosophers said and explained, inc. "logical contradictions". But that's a hell of a long time ago ... educated people today do not need philosophers to tell them what to think or what to do ... and indeed, they certainly do not typically use philosophy courses or the pronouncements of philosophers in what they do from day to day.

 

[IanS]

Both in this comment, IanS, as well as elsewhere upthread, I think you are conflating two separate discussions.

To be clear, this is not necessarily to disagree with what you are saying. As far as the first of those two, I am, in fact, inclined to agree with you, albeit my agreement would be more qualified and more tentative than your ironclad certainty. And as far as the second discussion, while I believe there's a great deal to be said on both sides of the issue, nevertheless in sum I expect I might end up agreeing with at least some portions of your argument (or at least, the kind of argument that I expect, basis what you've said thus far, that you might put up).

In fact, if people are interested in taking this forward, then this thread might rightly head off into two separate discussions, perhaps in two separate threads:

1. Does philosophy, in this day and age, contribute anything to our knowledge of reality?
   
   We've been having this discussion on general terms in this thread. I think a more rigorous discussion around this would require the participation of people with more specialized knowledge of what is actually taught today in universities and what kind of research actually happens today in philosophy (or for people here to take the trouble to find out).
   
   
   
2. Does it make sense to teach philosophy in universities, and award the whole string of degrees in it, right from undergrad courses up to doctoral and post-doctoral?
   
   This is a more open-ended subject, probably necessitating a broader discussion off a broader base. Some of those bases might be:
   
   (a) What exactly should be taught in universities, with degrees et cetera?
   
   (b) For instance, literature. You can get undergraduate degrees, right through to post-grad "research", in literature. If you can do that, why not with philosophy?
   
   (c) So, should literature be taught at all, formally that is? After all, to extend your argument about philosophy, we can all study literature, if we are so inclined, and come to our own conclusions about what we read. Do we really need formal doctoral degrees (or for that matter undergrad courses) in literature?
   
   (d) What about its utility? We're discussing what utility philosophy might have? What utility does a subject like literature have?
   
   (d) What about other soft subjects like, I don't know, art?
   
   (e) Rather than outright black and white, rather than outright "yes, let's keep teaching philosophy, as we are doing now" and outright "no, let's abolish all philosophy courses, and, at best, relegate them as a subset of historical studies", might it make sense to go for something of a halfway house? Might there be a case to restrict public funding to "useful" subjects, that do have a bearing on our actual lives --- like the sciences, and technology, and math? As well as, I don't know, law, maybe? That is, to purely utilitarian subjects? And leave the other subjects (that are not utilitarian) to be taught, whether formally or otherwise, to those who are willing and able to finance their study themselves?

I don't have a view of "ironclad certainty" about philosophy (or about anything else). In the posts here I am just responding to what people have claimed as the use of philosophy. And for what has been said here, I simply don't find their defence of philosophy very convincing. I think it really needs to have some greater benefit and greater use than has been described here.

As far as comparisons with literature or art are concerned - afaik, professors lecturing those courses are not claiming to tell scientists what they can & cannot do ... they are not claiming that science cannot discover true explanations for real things in this universe ... they are not telling us that they themselves, in their subject, are the arbiters of understanding "logical contradictions", such that without their expertise scientists and others would not notice when they had made mistakes due to "contradictions" ...

... the difference with philosophy is that, like science (and religion), it is a subject which has historically claimed to explain the world around us. That is afaik, it's claimed function (or at least, that was originally what it claimed to do). Literature and art and other subjects do not do that. Science does that, and so does religion. What has happened as far as I can see, is that science has really taken over from both religion and philosophy as our best and most successful way of investigating and properly/accurately explaining the world around us ...

... as far as I can see from what has been said in threads like this, that emergence of science has really made philosophy redundant. It's actually made religion redundant too, but that that's another subject which refuses to go away and for which the taxpayers are still required to provide funding in universities all over the world.

Maybe there is some good practical use for formal philosophy, and I have said that before in this thread ... but my objection is that I have yet to see clear worthwhile examples of that presented in this thread (or in any of the numerous previous threads). IMHO, it's not good enough to justify philosophy as a subsidised university subject, IF it's only real use is to "ask questions of other subjects", to "hold other subjects to account", and to point out various types of misuse of words and language such as "logical contradictions" and "logical fallacies" ...

... from what I've seen in 15 years of threads like this, by far the greatest use of philosophy seems to be it's ability to create and maintain arguments in the use of words & language, almost indefinitely. It seems to be mostly a means of arguing about our words and language rather than anything else.

 

[The Man]

Well .... to me the above seemed to be as much of a highly tangled mass of obtuse verbiage, as it was distinctly unconvincing.

You appear to be claiming that educated people in the 21st century cannot tell what what statements are in contradiction with one-another unless people with philosophy degrees and doctorates point it out to them. And I don't see any evidence support any claims like that.

No, I explicitly said that you do not need such philosophy degrees and doctorates to identify contradictions. Sorry for any confusion.

If you are talking about people without degrees and doctorates and who have not learned their "philosophy" from those with the degrees and doctorates, then the point is that you are just using your own ideas and beliefs and calling that "philosophy" ... which as I said before, is then getting into the sort of claims that say all constructive thought is philosophy.

Well, at least I didn't call any of my own ideas and beliefs "philosophy".

Very few scientists have philosophy degrees. And afaik, very few have ever taken any significant courses in philosophy.

Sure, I noted that myself some posts ago.

Are you really trying to tell me that those scientists cannot tell when there are contradictions in their interpretations of their own results? How many of the tens of thousands of reserach papers published in core science every year, do you think are flawed by "logical contradictions"? The answer, to save you the bother of even thinking about it, is effectively "None" ...

Nope, as noted above I was not trying to tell you that. Again sorry for the confusion. One of the reasons you don't tend to find such papers published in respectable science journals is due to the process of peer review.

Here is a searchable database of over 18,000 retracted scientific papers.

http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?

While, "logical contradictions" isn't specifically categorized it would however most likely fall under "+Concerns/Issues About Data" or "+Concerns/Issues About Results".

In this paper The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not Accepted for Publication. In Table 1 under "Interpretation of the Findings" is "Unexplained inconsistencies", which an unintended or unexplained "logical contradiction" would be.

... if you are not talking about educated people, then uneducated people might make all manner or mistakes in what they think or believe to be true or logical. But they are also the group least likely to be consulting philosophy books or university courses to put that right!

Sure, but I don't think even uneducated people would have much difficulty in identifying a contradiction when they see one.

The problem is that it is just so easy for people to contradict themselves, even educated people, they may not even notice they've done so. Particularly in very complicated and technical matters. This is why such things like science, logic and math have more formalized definitions and language (to cut down on ambiguity) and things like peer review. To have others take a fresh look at things the author might miss by simply being too close to them.

ETA sentence; Heck, you don't need to go far into the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology sub-forum here to find people spouting their notions, they've been working on for a decade or more in some cases, that aren't even self-consistent let alone generally consistent.

Long, long ago in the ancient past, in a pre-scientific age, people who considered themselves relatively well educated, or who considered themselves wealthy and wishing to spend more of their leisure time educating themselves, they might at that time have benefitted from all sorts of things that philosophers said and explained, inc. "logical contradictions". But that's a hell of a long time ago ... educated people today do not need philosophers to tell them what to think or what to do ... and indeed, they certainly do not typically use philosophy courses or the pronouncements of philosophers in what they do from day to day.

Actually "logical contradictions" are called that because they are aspects of logic (not specifically just philosophy) and proof by contradiction^WP is generally how such logical contradictions get used in both logic and mathematics even today.

 

[Belz...]

Wait, you’d charge someone because you were not asked to do something you claim you can’t?

Do you not know the meaning of the word "would"? Or are you playing games again?

Again you make the demonstration yourself.

It's not my claim; it's yours. You insist that it is so but have been unable to demonstrate it. If our roles were reversed you'd reject my claim as I do yours.

 

[IanS]

No, I explicitly said that you do not need such philosophy degrees and doctorates to identify contradictions. Sorry for any confusion.



Well, at least I didn't call any of my own ideas and beliefs "philosophy".



Sure, I noted that myself some posts ago.



Nope, as noted above I was not trying to tell you that. Again sorry for the confusion. One of the reasons you don't tend to find such papers published in respectable science journals is due to the process of peer review.

Here is a searchable database of over 18,000 retracted scientific papers.

http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?

While, "logical contradictions" isn't specifically categorized it would however most likely fall under "+Concerns/Issues About Data" or "+Concerns/Issues About Results".

In this paper The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not Accepted for Publication. In Table 1 under "Interpretation of the Findings" is "Unexplained inconsistencies", which an unintended or unexplained "logical contradiction" would be.



Sure, but I don't think even uneducated people would have much difficulty in identifying a contradiction when they see one.

The problem is that it is just so easy for people to contradict themselves, even educated people, they may not even notice they've done so. Particularly in very complicated and technical matters. This is why such things like science, logic and math have more formalized definitions and language (to cut down on ambiguity) and things like peer review. To have others take a fresh look at things the author might miss by simply being too close to them.

ETA sentence; Heck, you don't need to go far into the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology sub-forum here to find people spouting their notions, they've been working on for a decade or more in some cases, that aren't even self-consistent let alone generally consistent.



Actually "logical contradictions" are called that because they are aspects of logic (not specifically just philosophy) and proof by contradiction^WP is generally how such logical contradictions get used in both logic and mathematics even today.

OK, well it does not sound as if we are disagreeing much.

Though when you say that in science any contradictions, inconsistencies or similar issues are generally caught by the peer review process - that was of course exactly my point ... that's why I always say "properly published papers (in real science research journals)" ... I've emphasised that probably 20 times or more in this thread.

Outside of published research (which is itself immediately open to criticisms and corrections from other experts in the field all around the world ... and where they will certainly write to you or to the editors of the journal pointing out your errors ... and that's also something I've said several times before in this thread), just in ordinary conversation or posts written on the internet, or even in articles for magazines or even published books, any of us might make mistakes of contradiction or repetition or inconsistency etc. etc., ... but it does not matters too much because not a great deal depends on it (whereas in published research papers, such mistakes do matter ... or more accurately I should say they "can matter", because it depends greatly on whether the mistake is one of language or one of the actual science).

But as I say (and you may have already agreed to this above) - science does not need philosophy to check it's work and tell it what to do, what it should do, (and what it "cannot do"??) etc.

So what is philosophy and philosophers doing for other academic subjects such as science (or history, geography, art, music, economics ...almost anything) that the experts in those other subjects are not fully capable of doing for themselves (and probably doing it far better than any philosophers who are mostly not so expert in those other fields)? You may have told me the answer to that already, so I apologise for asking that question again for the 50th time here (if only rhetorically) ... but if you did already answer that then I expect that I did not find the answer very convincing.

 

[The Man]

Do you not know the meaning of the word "would"? Or are you playing games again?

Do you know the meanings of contractions? "You'd" is a contraction of 'you would', just as your assertion of "I'd" is, or, well, was. Now you might pretend that it meant 'you had'. However, the tenses would be wrong. 'Had' is past tense, as is 'would', so the tenses of "charge" were misapplied in both our cases. Sorry if your own usage of a contraction confused you. Or are you playing games again?

It's not my claim; it's yours. You insist that it is so but have been unable to demonstrate it. If our roles were reversed you'd reject my claim as I do yours.

Ah, your deliberate ignorance of what was posted again. Your implication that I might be asserting 'Again you [should] make the demonstration yourself'. Is demonstrably false by what you did deliberately ignore.