Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2011 16:48:28 GMT -5
Since a member has suggested that philosophy is simply navel gazing I feel compelled to post, not simply a defence of my own discipline, but also to ask serious questions about what is and is not the nature of science.
I shall begin with a simple definition. Philosophy comes from two Greek words and means 'the love of wisdom.'
Its methods are analytic, logical and also based upon inductive reasoning following sensory observation.
It has helped clarify the meanings of many otherwise obscure topics and it is the fundamental basis of all scientific experiment.
The theory of relativity, for instance, derives from the work of Einstein and Minkowski but is fundamentally embedded in the work of the German philosopher, mathematician and scientist Ernst Mach. Einstein freely confessed his debt to Mach and in particular to his philosophical speculations that had led him along the path towards his own theories of relativity.
I could say a great more but I shall be going out shortly down to the shops so will have to leave it there for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 11, 2011 16:55:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Feb 11, 2011 17:23:14 GMT -5
That's art, Fret (and not very good art either!) but it ain't science, baby!
I'll probably die of boredom waiting but it would be nice if you actually tried to put forward some sort of sensible argument instead of just patronising everyone who disagrees with you.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 11, 2011 18:20:11 GMT -5
That's art, Fret (and not very good art either!) but it ain't science, baby! I'll probably die of boredom waiting but it would be nice if you actually tried to put forward some sort of sensible argument instead of just patronising everyone who disagrees with you. Its a Cartoon, not a Rembrandt or a Van Eyck! I suppose one shouldn't disappoint the lady. Quite simply, philosophy is dead as a source of knowledge. My inclinations are with Hawking and Mlodinow. The rest is as I described it in 'that' other thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2011 14:29:40 GMT -5
Since a member has suggested that philosophy is simply navel gazing I feel compelled to post, not simply a defence of my own discipline, I am puzzled by this thread and this post. Why does philosophy need defending? If it was worth anything at all, it should be able to stand on its own, without a certain poster ina certain MB defending it. If somebody said Maths is just playing (with numbers) I wouldn't need to jump in defence of Maths. I would simply walk away, as Maths needs no defence. Same with Physics, Chemistry, Stats etc. This seems like another meaningless statement. Is science NOT 'the love of wisdom? Are scientific methods NOT "analytic, logical and also based upon inductive reasoning following sensory observation. I fail to see the relevance of such superfluous statements. Prashna
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Feb 12, 2011 17:58:43 GMT -5
As far as I'm aware, modern philosophy is intensely mathematical, possibly too much so. Simply because something may work mathematically is no guarantee that it does actually have 'real world' application.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 12, 2011 18:04:22 GMT -5
the best phillosophers are to be found at closing time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 12:59:19 GMT -5
I notice that to date no sensible replies have been posted on this thread.
I fail to see why Prashna should be puzzled by the title of the thread.
I explained exactly why I had posted it at the beginning and can only assume he did not trouble to read that part of my post.
Why does philosophy need defending?
I do not believe that it does.
The irony is that science rests foursquare on the basis of philosophy and mathematics. Not only that, but many scientists both past and present have engaged in extensive philosophising.
Hawking, Monod, Jeans, Hoyle, Dawkins, Eiseley and many other names in science have held forth on and published books of an entirely philosophical nature.
Possibly because they had NOT troubled to study philosophy beforehand they made numerous mistakes of an entirely elementary nature that a first-year student would have had educated out of them.
In any event, does scientific 'knowledge' enjoy any GENUINELY privileged status?
Science is NOT about facts but their application; NOT about objectivity but attempting to confirm (often prejudiced and mistaken) hypotheses; does NOT in point of fact employ the so-called 'hypothetico-deductive method' to prove or disprove its theories.
I am not attacking science nor suggesting that philosophy has a greater right to advance any kind of truth claims.
What I AM pointing out is that both play an essential part in the construction of the world around us, on every level.
Maybe somebody will attempt to respond intelligently instead of simply posting irrelevant, irrational and childish silliness.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 13, 2011 13:29:52 GMT -5
I think Prashna hit the nail on the head, Mike.
"Why does philosophy need defending? If it was worth anything at all, it should be able to stand on its own"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 14:13:07 GMT -5
What I AM pointing out is that both play an essential part in the construction of the world around us, on every level. I concur, although I believe that every level is a slight exaggeration. Prashna
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 13, 2011 14:14:59 GMT -5
It seems my original quote - 'navel gazing' - fired the old thinker up
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 15:05:22 GMT -5
It seems my original quote - 'navel gazing' - fired the old thinker up Perhaps, Fret you could adopt the phrase 'introspective circumambu'lation' instead. Not quite as catchy as 'navel gazing' though! Prashna
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Feb 13, 2011 16:22:53 GMT -5
It seems my original quote - 'navel gazing' - fired the old thinker up [/quote Maybe he just got irritated that you couldn't be bothered to make an intelligent reply. It's always easier to be sarcastic and patronising than to try and disucss the issues sensibly.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Feb 13, 2011 16:27:17 GMT -5
If you'd actually bothered to READ his post, Fret, you'd have seen that he was ALSO asking the SAME question about science.
On a broader issue, why does ANYTHING that's being attacked (as you HAD attacked philosophy) need defending?
Because if you don't the bullies walk all over you, that's why.
Why do liberal values and human rights need defending? Because they're under attack from extremists.
Why does philosophy need defending? Because it's under attack from irrationalists.
Now get a grip and try READING posts BEFORE you reply to them!
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Feb 14, 2011 0:56:44 GMT -5
It seems my original quote - 'navel gazing' - fired the old thinker up Perhaps, Fret you could adopt the phrase 'introspective circumambu'lation' instead. Not quite as catchy as 'navel gazing' though! Prashna Hi Prashna. Surely philosophy - thinking about thinking is, I think, one definition - is an all-embracing term like 'writing' or, indeed, 'thinking'. Depends on who is doing the philosophising. It can result in clouds of meaningless verbiage if practised by 19th century Germans like Kant and Hegel - not that they did any harm except for paving the way for Naziism. Science is organised knowledge. Philosophy is speculation about the knowledge that science produces.
|
|