Science is bad!

Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the dreamscape via morphic resonance. We are at a crossroads of energy and desire. Humankind has nothing to lose.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I don't see why this is such a big problem.

Let me ask you this: What do you think the alternative is? The way I see it, if we are going to employ science and treat its findings as accurate, then there are two options.

A: Critically analyze the methods of science (the philosophy of science).
B: Just go along with the methods blindly (faith).
If you have a third option, let me know.

I think A is the best option. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Does philosophy teach you to do those false dichotomies, A: or B:, C: is right out.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
We are talking past each other - you used you as something I could do. Notice you didn't use we, you separate us into 2 different things, you and I.
So for you use of work and useful it only works for we if it is both useful and works for both of us.
That is not a given!!!
Click to expand...

Og hvad skulle det betyde på dansk?! Har du brugt google translate for at få det til at se ud, som det gør?
 
I Am The Scum said:
You're doing it.

The philosophy of science.

You're doing it right now.


Feels good, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

This argument feels familiar and I realized it the same as when theists tell me that I have to use logic to argue against god and since god invented logic any argument I make actually proves god.

Just as that argument only works when we assume there is a god your argument only works if we assume that philosophy is the basis for everything.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
That is the short version and a practical example of what it means to be a skeptic. It is also why skeptics can be a pain in ***.
I as a human of course act and do stuff, but the moment someone goes we and the world, I go skeptic. That has nothing in particular to do with religion or politics, rather the moment someone in practice "plays" we and the world, I "bite" as a skeptic.
Someone: Why do you do that? Can't we agree that world would be a better place if we all became rational, logical, coherent and only used evidence and dropped beliefs?
Me: How do you know that this is possible?

Now I will answer, if you want to discuss how we might achieve a better world; i.e. I will try to be positive. But if you intent to go the route of in effect - "I only accept non-subjective evidence" I will "bite". That is philosophy, not science and it has been tried and it doesn't work.
So yes, I will try to be positive and not skeptical/negative about a better world, but I don't do - "I know with rationality, logical, objectivity, coherence and evidence and without subjective beliefs how we can achieve a better world".
It has been tried for over 2000 years now, both in philosophy and religion and it doesn't work!!!
So if you think you can do it using science, you are in all likelihood not doing science, but philosophy and/or religion. You just haven't realized it!
Click to expand...

I read over this 3 times and I'm still not sure what stance you're taking on the issue. Would you care to clarify?

As others have said, both the objective and the subjective have their proper place. That's my take on it as well.
 
tsig said:
Just as that argument only works when we assume there is a god your argument only works if we assume that philosophy is the basis for everything.
Click to expand...

First of all, that's not my argument and I don't know where you got the idea that it is.

But more to the point, I don't really see what your issue is.

1. There is a term for the analysis of the scientific method, as well as its purpose and implications.
2. That term is "the philosophy of science."
3. This is something taught and studied in philosophy courses. It even has its own textbooks.
4. You asked for a "valid branch of philosophy."
5. I pointed out the philosophy of science.
6. You (apparently) do not agree that it is "valid."

I've numbered these because I want you to point out where I'm off track here.

If it's #6, then what do you propose as an alternative? Presumably, we will continue to use science, so how should we proceed? Shall we take it on faith that the scientific method is a good one?

If this is just a gut reaction to the "p word," then say so.
 
Oh good the "Everything you do is philosophy, I'm using philosophy, ergo you can't argue with me" routine.
 
I Am The Scum said:
First of all, that's not my argument and I don't know where you got the idea that it is.

But more to the point, I don't really see what your issue is.

1. There is a term for the analysis of the scientific method, as well as its purpose and implications.
2. That term is "the philosophy of science."
3. This is something taught and studied in philosophy courses. It even has its own textbooks.
4. You asked for a "valid branch of philosophy."
5. I pointed out the philosophy of science.
6. You (apparently) do not agree that it is "valid."

I've numbered these because I want you to point out where I'm off track here.

If it's #6, then what do you propose as an alternative? Presumably, we will continue to use science, so how should we proceed? Shall we take it on faith that the scientific method is a good one?

If this is just a gut reaction to the "p word," then say so.
Click to expand...

Since the scientific method works it is a good method and it doesn't need the blessings of philosophers to do so.

When you have a weather vane you don't need a philosopher to tell which way the wind blows.
 
I Am The Scum said:
You're doing it.

The philosophy of science.

You're doing it right now.


Feels good, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

JoeBentley said:
Oh good the "Everything you do is philosophy, I'm using philosophy, ergo you can't argue with me" routine.
Click to expand...

I Am The Scum said:
Things I literally never said, and do not believe. I absolutely don't know how to make this any more clear.
Click to expand...

I read that post to say that I was doing philosophy whether I know it or not and in order to argue against philosophy I have to use philosophy.
 
tsig said:
When you have a weather vane you don't need a philosopher to tell which way the wind blows.
Click to expand...

Again, things I never said, and do not believe.

I read that post to say that I was doing philosophy whether I know it or not and in order to argue against philosophy I have to use philosophy.
Click to expand...
Like I said, there is a term for what you are doing. It is called "the philosophy of science."

Remember those 6 sentences I gave you earlier? Did you find one that you disagree with yet, or are you just in a contradicting mood?

And no, I did not say that "everything" is philosophy. I said you were using it in that post.
 
This is kinda how the exchange has gone down.

:) I never use pronouns in my sentences.
:cool: But you just did. "I" is a pronoun.
:) Oh! So you're one of those people who thinks everything is pronouns. Look at how smug you are!
:cool: :confused:
 
I Am The Scum said:
This is kinda how the exchange has gone down.

:) I never use pronouns in my sentences.
:cool: But you just did. "I" is a pronoun.
:) Oh! So you're one of those people who thinks everything is pronouns. Look at how smug you are!
:cool: :confused:
Click to expand...

If you have something to contribute now would be a good time instead of complaining how misunderstood you are.
 
By now I'm curious what you think philosophy IS. Clearing that up would probably go a long way towards helping understand WTH your complaint is with it, or with being associated with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom