Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

I don't understand this at all.

That seems to be a recurring theme for you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah it's like people don't get that we're arguing that philosophy has too many definitions, not that it doesn't have enough.

Yeah we know all the definitions. We also know they are going to change in 5 minutes. That's the point.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't understand this at all.

Take a shot.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Why do philosophy defenders have such an easy time being able to identify what philosophy isn't yet such a hard time explaining or given non-vague examples of what it actually is?

Why do you have such a hard time explaining what science is and isn't?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why do you have such a hard time explaining what science is and isn't?

I don't. You're just lying to make a fake "tit for tat" point that doesn't exist.

Again the Venn Diagram between philosophy and trolling is pretty much a circle at this point.

 

[Jimbo07]

Don't play that game, please. You posted it and vouched for it.

Yeah, I'm trying to defer to those actually engaged in the practice, and not me?

Ask 2 philosophers, get 2 different answers. Ask 100, get 100. That's the problem. As for definitions, I don't think I need to tell you who defines words.

You don't strike me as someone who's talked to many, much less 100.

As for who defines words? I guess the good people at Merriam-Webster? Or, is it those active in those fields, and the dictionaries and Wikipedia pick it up later?

That seems to be a recurring theme for you.

Take a shot.

Are you guys seriously telling me that you can't tell the difference between someone with half a semester of freshman philosophy (which seems to be a lot of what we get here) and an actual philosopher? Is there a difference between someone taking "Rocks for Jocks" and a practicing Geophysicist?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I don't. You're just lying to make a fake "tit for tat" point that doesn't exist.

Well then, since you can't do it for science, why do you keep asking the "philosophy defenders" to do it for philosophy?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well then, since you can't do it for science, why do you keep asking the "philosophy defenders" to do it for philosophy?

I can. I have. Multiple times. In this thread alone. I have put down definition I am comfortable being held to that haven't changed to every five minutes.

Again you're just lying and saying I haven't to maintain trolling.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, I'm trying to defer to those actually engaged in the practice, and not me?

You're missing the point. At this point I think it's deliberate.

Are you guys seriously telling me that you can't tell the difference between someone with half a semester of freshman philosophy (which seems to be a lot of what we get here) and an actual philosopher?

There you go again, changing to a different question altogether, which has nothing to do with what you quote.

 

[Jimbo07]

Well then, since you can't do it for science, why do you keep asking the "philosophy defenders" to do it for philosophy?

I can. I have. Multiple times. In this thread alone. I have put down definition I am comfortable being held to that haven't changed to every five minutes.

Again you're just lying and saying I haven't to maintain trolling.

Fortunately, scientists don't need you to do this for them. You're relieved of having to carry the burden of defending the practice of any of the natural sciences.

Unless you're attacking the practice of philosophy. And if so? Why?

You're missing the point. At this point I think it's deliberate.

Fair enough. I've lost the plot. It's not deliberate though. What point have I missed?

There you go again,

There you go again!

changing to a different question altogether, which has nothing to do with what you quote.

Joe wrote:

That's a lot of "No true Philosophical Scotsman" there.

I wrote:

I don't understand this at all. Of course we're not practicing philosophy here.

When I babble over on the Sci/Tech forum, am I practicing science?

Joe wrote:

Take a shot.

I wrote:

Are you guys seriously telling me that you can't tell the difference between someone with half a semester of freshman philosophy (which seems to be a lot of what we get here) and an actual philosopher?

How am I changing the question?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm also at the point that my objective definition of the difference between philosophy and science is whether or not trolls show up to defend it.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I can. I have. Multiple times. In this thread alone. I have put down definition I am comfortable being held to that haven't changed to every five minutes.

I've seen you claim that multiple times in this thread alone, but i haven't seen the definition. Why not link it up?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Fortunately, scientists don't need you to do this for them. You're relieved of having to carry the burden of defending the practice of any of the natural sciences.

Unless you're attacking the practice of philosophy. And if so? Why?

Again your inability to understand that there is more to life than authoritarian arguments by definition is your problem, not mine.

"This is X because Y says so because Y is the keeper of X" is as far as you seem to be able to go mentally.

Things have standards outside of "Because people who do it say so."

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've seen you claim that multiple times in this thread alone, but i haven't seen the definition. Why not link it up?

Because you're a troll and will just pretend to forget it. The thread is still here, any honest agent in the discussion can read it.

 

[Belz...]

Well then, since you can't do it for science, why do you keep asking the "philosophy defenders" to do it for philosophy?

Don't you understand that the philosophiles here have expended their entire reserve of benefit of the doubt?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Because you're a troll and will just pretend to forget it. The thread is still here, any honest agent in the discussion can read it.

As I said before, I can understand. It's tough for many.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Don't you understand that the philosophiles here have expended their entire reserve of benefit of the doubt?

What?

 

[Jimbo07]

Again your inability to understand that there is more to life than authoritarian arguments by definition is your problem, not mine.

"This is X because Y says so because Y is the keeper of X" is as far as you seem to be able to go mentally.

Things have standards outside of "Because people who do it say so."

You bet they do!

That said, because we lack the expertise, we are wise to defer to it. There is a difference between deference to authority and an Argument from authority or Appeal to false authority.

Lacking expertise, should we doubt all experts, especially when we don't know first-hand what they're saying? Should we doubt epidemiologists? Do we have the necessary skills/background/personal knowledge?

Asking someone what a department does is exactly a role for someone in that department.

 

[IanS]

No, but at that point the terms would have been intertwined. From the Wiki article:

"Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BCE),[7][8] others dispute this story,[9][10] arguing that Pythagoreans merely claimed use of a preexisting term."

So, boy, did philosophy begin in 570 BCE, or not? And since it may have been used before, is it easily separable from critical thinking? If anything, using the term critical thinking is more recent.

What you would probably need is a class of people with the time to reflect on such things, and write them down. Literacy wasn't universal, so philosophy as a formal discipline, as going beyond rudimentary reflection, would be a later development.



I'd say close, but other way around. It is not all constructive thought, but constructive thought is one of the central outputs of philosophy. As I've quoted, philosophy is an activity, not a collection of facts. So is science. .

We now seem to be discussing the history of what became known as “philosophy”, and discussing who first described it with the word “philosophy”.
That's more like a discussion where philosophy leads us into a discussion about itself! But that is certainly not at all what the discussion here is about!

Is science philosophy? Since at least abut 1900 science has been a different subject from philosophy. If you go to any university and try to sign up for a degree in philosophy, then you will certainly not be shown into any of the core/main science departments. Philosophers are not employed (or paid) as scientists, and they do not generally try to publish their philosophical ideas in the science journals. These are two different subjects …

… the only connection or similarity is that like religion, philosophy was an early way of attempting to discover and/or explain all sorts of things in the world around us. But eventually what emerged from those early methods or beliefs, was a new and distinct methodology that we now know as “science”. However, the big difference is that science quite quickly became vastly more successful at finding genuine convincing testable explanations … so much so, that it has now completely eclipsed the former subjects of religion and philosophy in that pursuit of truly & properly explaining what are likely to be the correct answers to “all” our questions about this universe vs what had previously been (from religion and from philosophy) 3000 years of almost 100% complete inadequate failure (or more kindly, failure "mistakes").

 

[Belz...]

That said, because we lack the expertise, we are wise to defer to it.

What expertise? Expertise in structured thinking? I've got plenty of that. I don't need to defer to anyone.

The broad definition of philosophy is pointless if you're trying to argue from authority.