My theoretical framework

[Piggy]

brodski, we can go round and round about this, but I don't see any point in it.

None of the questions you're posing seem to me to require philosophical answers.

None of them.

Do what works. Don't do what doesn't work. Don't continue to believe stuff that's contrary to fact just because you were told it or it makes you feel good. That's how I live.

As far as I'm concerned, that's not philosophy, just being practical.

I have no problem with you, or anyone else, deciding you want to put philosophical labels on things, or pose philosophical questions for yourselves to ponder. Knock yourself out.

But at the end of the day, it just ain't necessary.

 

[brodski]

Because that's not all that's in our brains.

There are certain delusions which are advantageous from an evolutionary point of view.

However, although delusions might help us make it through the night, only reason can reliably align our notions about the world with the reality of the world.

But it's often true that reason ain't pretty.

Which is why we need philosophy of since to help separate the useful stuff from the less useful stuff.

Technology has been around since the dawn of civilisation science has only been around for a few hundred years at most, and it was only when philosophers started to examine the world and formulate ideas about how when can "know".

That fact that the framework they developed is now so culturally ingrained as to be seen to be "common science" is a testiment to those philosophers, it does not mean that their work was worthless nor that it is finished.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm confused.

How are we using the word 'philosophy' in this 'discussion'? Some form of post-structuralism/post-modernism?

Science is natural philosophy, afterall.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Well certainly if y'all want to call that philosophy, I'm not going to argue with you.

Piggy's definition of philosophy:

Self-referential

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 10 removed.

I do no think that when you guys and Piggy are discussing philosophy that its necessarily about the same thing. Piggy is an empiricist -- a practical man. He doesn't feel the overwhelming need to play metaphysical "football" when hes got his eyes and ears and common-sense. What ever works for him -- leave'm be.

/shrug

I'm confused.

How are we using the word 'philosophy' in this 'discussion'? Some form of post-structuralism/post-modernism?

Science is natural philosophy, afterall.

I think thats the thing Piggy hates the most [and I share his annoyance]. I think that during his time in academia he ran into way to many of those and hes still suffering from the trauma.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well certainly if y'all want to call that philosophy, I'm not going to argue with you. It's your discipline, after all.

Let me tell you how you sound when making your claims. Let's say that someone ask you to give her a ride (in her car) to somewhere, and you say, "I can't I don't believe in driving".

She then give you a look, "... what's his game?" and she tells you that you have been doing it since she can remember.

Then you say "No, driving a car is stupid, all you need to do is open the door, sit in the car, move your hands and feet like this and that when this and that happens, and you arrive where you want to go. I can even utter: Look, Ma! No driving! That's why I believe it is idiotic to even attempt to drive".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Science is an application of philosophy.

EXACTLY RIGHT! And yet, so difficult to understand by (some) people in this forum. I have asked (not that it will happen) to separate the "Religion and Philosophy" topic in two different forums. Maybe some of the problems piggy (and others) have is because they share the same forum.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I guarantee you that I could take a small child and teach him how to view the world scientifically and use the scientific method on a purely "see, this does that" basis with no reference to any philosophy whatsoever.

All hands-on, all common sense, all with the perceptive and analytical abilities that come hard-wired into us.

Piggy, Piggy. Wrong wrong and wrong again.

There is no scientific method without philosophy. The "this does that" requires deductive, rational and argumentative abilities, that are based on theoretical frameworks (thats right, PHILOSOPHY).

The "common sense" IS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK for crying out loud!

 

[Piggy]

From my point of view, it's more like this....

I take the girl home, we have a wonderful evening, she stays over, and the next morning I fix breakfast.

I'm making omelets, and she comes into the kitchen and says, "Hey, where'd you learn astrology?"

I say, "Huh?"

She says, "I said, 'Where'd you learn astrology?'".

I reply, "I don't know anything about astrology. I'm just making breakfast."

"Yeah," she says, "that's what I mean. Everything we do is a branch of astrology."

"I'm just making breakfast," I say. "It doesn't haven't anything to do with astrology."

"Sure it does," she says. "You just don't understand astrology."

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

...

 

[Piggy]

There is no scientific method without philosophy. The "this does that" requires deductive, rational and argumentative abilities, that are based on theoretical frameworks (thats right, PHILOSOPHY).

Uh, nope. "This does that", and deduction, and reason, these are all built into our brains by evolution so that we don't expire.

True, it takes training to hone these skills and to remove as much of the contrary delusional thinking as possible, but that just requires attention and observation, no philo.

Which isn't to say you can't get there by philo. I'm sure you can. But you don't have to.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Uh, nope. "This does that", and deduction, and reason, these are all built into our brains by evolution so that we don't expire.

You are aware that that sounds as Interesting Ian or (put here the name of your favorite woo)... right?

"built into our brains" Come on Piggy, at one time you was about to sound rational, but now is all gone.

Lets see, there are RULES to deduct something, yes, philosophy. Is it reasonable or not to believe there are souls? Well, to answer, you need to provide a theoretical framework and from it (testing it against facts) you will conclude something. You see... "reason" does not come in every box of Corn Flakes, you know? oh, and it is not a hardwired circuit in your brain either.

All you are doing is teasing, right?

 

[Piggy]

You are aware that that sounds as Interesting Ian or (put here the name of your favorite woo)... right?

"built into our brains" Come on Piggy, at one time you was about to sound rational, but now is all gone.

Lets see, there are RULES to deduct something, yes, philosophy. Is it reasonable or not to believe there are souls? Well, to answer, you need to provide a theoretical framework and from it (testing it against facts) you will conclude something. You see... "reason" does not come in every box of Corn Flakes, you know? oh, and it is not a hardwired circuit in your brain either.

All you are doing is teasing, right?

Oh... you're one of those tabula rasa guys, eh?

Well, then there's nothing I can say, I reckon.

You think we learn reason, that it's not a hard-wired tool for survival?

Ok. If it suits you to think so.

Makes no sense, but hey, whatever gets you through the night.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Makes no sense, but hey, whatever gets you through the night.

Thanks, but to really sleep well I have to say, (to put it in other words):

Without assumptions, you have no science. Incorrect assumptions equals to wrong experiments. Bad reasoning will get you incorrect conclusions.

Thats right, without philosophy, you don't have science, but dark ages. That's what you want.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

The definition of philosophy in this discussion has, on the one hand, been stretched to such an extent that it’s useless to call it philosophy anymore, and on the other hand, to such a narrow degree that it cannot be confined without becoming nonexistent in our everyday reasoning. I think we will not reach a consensus between these points of views anytime soon.

Personally, I would mostly associate the term philosophy with the academic discipline itself (as in an academic but still arbitrary drawn distinction).

 

[Phaedrus74]

The definition of philosophy in this discussion has, on the one hand, been stretched to such an extent that it’s useless to call it philosophy anymore, and on the other hand, to such a narrow degree that it cannot be confined without becoming nonexistent in our everyday reasoning. I think we will not reach a consensus between these points of views anytime soon.

Personally, I would mostly associate the term philosophy with the academic discipline itself (as in an academic but still arbitrary drawn distinction).

My impression was that the debate has been confined to academic philosophy since the inception of the thread. On the one hand there are people arguing the point that philosophy is a non-essential discipline with respect to the development of certain technologies (be they conceptual as in the scientific method or material as in engineering). On the other hand there are people arguing that philosophy is essential in this respect.

I believe they are both right, as Brodski pointed out to get to where we are today philosophy nor science are necessary. To put it differently a million monkeys and a million typewriters given sufficient time will inevitably produce Sonnet Numer n by Shakespeare, no higher cognition required.
On the other hand we are confronted by the simple historical fact that philosophy has played a crucial role in the coming about of the scientific method. It has played a crucial role in the development of certain scientific disciplines.

So in closing, I can see where piggy is coming from. Personally I have no problems with post-modern philosophy when it is applied in a sensible manner, but I have seen enough instances of blabberitis to understand that people consider it not very useful. As to the theoretical framework proposed by BDZ, it is a valid philosophical position, but as I stated previously I can see no good reason to suppose that the noumena are not what my perceptions seem to indicate. The basic point that BDZ makes is that I can be mistaken about this, and this is trivial (as (s)he knows). The only conclusion that follows from this is that I should be mindful of my assumptions and willing to "bracket" them if circumstances warrant it: when I have a good reason to suppose my assumptions are erroneous.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I believe they are both right, as Brodski pointed out to get to where we are today philosophy nor science are necessary. To put it differently a million monkeys and a million typewriters given sufficient time will inevitably produce Sonnet Numer n by Shakespeare, no higher cognition required.
On the other hand we are confronted by the simple historical fact that philosophy has played a crucial role in the coming about of the scientific method. It has played a crucial role in the development of certain scientific disciplines.

Sure, philosophy (the formal discipline) has played a role, although it’s far more difficult to clarify the role in a cause-effect relationship, i.e. how philosophy has made such developments possible. It seems to me that there’s always a bilateral relationship between describing and formalizing what’s going on, and contemplating further on a given description/formalization as to it’s possible consequences. It’s difficult to distinguish where philosophy primarily had a clerical vs. genuinely innovative role. Which begs the question: how crucial of a role has philosophy had? I think it goes unanswered.

As to the theoretical framework proposed by BDZ, it is a valid philosophical position, but as I stated previously I can see no good reason to suppose that the noumena are not what my perceptions seem to indicate. The basic point that BDZ makes is that I can be mistaken about this, and this is trivial (as (s)he knows). The only conclusion that follows from this is that I should be mindful of my assumptions and willing to "bracket" them if circumstances warrant it: when I have a good reason to suppose my assumptions are erroneous.

I think I agree with you (if I understood you correctly): Simply assuming that the noumena being something we cannot know also means that such initial assumption is problematic by its own internal logic. There’s really no reason to discuss the noumena if nothing can be known about it, including the “fact” that we cannot know that it cannot be known.

 

[Piggy]

Without assumptions, you have no science. Incorrect assumptions equals to wrong experiments. Bad reasoning will get you incorrect conclusions.

Thats right, without philosophy, you don't have science, but dark ages. That's what you want.

That's not philosophy. That's just thinking straight.

 

[Piggy]

My impression was that the debate has been confined to academic philosophy since the inception of the thread. ...<snip>... The only conclusion that follows from this is that I should be mindful of my assumptions and willing to "bracket" them if circumstances warrant it: when I have a good reason to suppose my assumptions are erroneous.

Thanks, Phaedrus74. I can get behind the ideas in that post.

(Except the monkey thing... turns out not to be true, which is an interesting little experiment in itself, but totally beside the point since you were just using an analogy.)

 

[Phaedrus74]

I believe they are both right, as Brodski pointed out to get to where we are today philosophy nor science are necessary. To put it differently a million monkeys and a million typewriters given sufficient time will inevitably produce Sonnet Numer n by Shakespeare, no higher cognition required.
On the other hand we are confronted by the simple historical fact that philosophy has played a crucial role in the coming about of the scientific method. It has played a crucial role in the development of certain scientific disciplines.

Sure, philosophy (the formal discipline) has played a role, although it’s far more difficult to clarify the role in a cause-effect relationship, i.e. how philosophy has made such developments possible. It seems to me that there’s always a bilateral relationship between describing and formalizing what’s going on, and contemplating further on a given description/formalization as to it’s possible consequences. It’s difficult to distinguish where philosophy primarily had a clerical vs. genuinely innovative role. Which begs the question: how crucial of a role has philosophy had? I think it goes unanswered.

The point I was trying to make was really rather more simple. The natural philosophers of the 16th and 17th century developed a "Fact"-based way of describing the world as opposed to a "Belief"-based way of doing the same. To qualify them as scientists is to an extent justified, but they did not think of themselves as anything other than philosophers.

What I should have said in my post was that philosophers have had (instead of: philosophy had) a crucial role in the coming about of the scientific method. My bad....

As to the theoretical framework proposed by BDZ, it is a valid philosophical position, but as I stated previously I can see no good reason to suppose that the noumena are not what my perceptions seem to indicate. The basic point that BDZ makes is that I can be mistaken about this, and this is trivial (as (s)he knows). The only conclusion that follows from this is that I should be mindful of my assumptions and willing to "bracket" them if circumstances warrant it: when I have a good reason to suppose my assumptions are erroneous.

I think I agree with you (if I understood you correctly): Simply assuming that the noumena being something we cannot know also means that such initial assumption is problematic by its own internal logic. There’s really no reason to discuss the noumena if nothing can be known about it, including the “fact” that we cannot know that it cannot be known.

It would be a problem if it were anything other than an assumption. As originally formulated (see OP) this notion was presented as fact and that is problematic since a fact can only exist inside a coherent theoretical framework, the assumptions/axioms that define this framework might count as facts for the evaluation of inferences (they are assumed to be true) but they are not proper facts in the sense that they are something about which one can be in error. So, no, in response to your first sentence the assumption (since it is not self-contradictory) is not problematic because of it's internal logic. It is in other words a completely and utterly valid position since it is an assumption/axiom.

Regarding the second sentence in your post, yes. I actually go a step further and claim that, barring evidence to the contrary, we can safely assume identity of phenomenon and noumenon. (Note however that we can only assume this...)

 

[Phaedrus74]

Thanks, Phaedrus74. I can get behind the ideas in that post.

(Except the monkey thing... turns out not to be true, which is an interesting little experiment in itself, but totally beside the point since you were just using an analogy.)

You're welcome...

Regarding the monkey thing, how is it not possible? Please enlighten me, since I am prone to using this analogy and I don't want it exploding in my face in the future...