Hugo Holbling

This is an off-topic remark, but since another poster has mentioned it: what say you, Bill and Philosoft, to the possibility of a reading list, as i discussed in an earlier post? May i start a thread in this forum on the issue, or will you?

Philosoft

Hugo,

A philosophy reading list seems like an eminently topical item. I believe the E/C forum has just such a thing. We might even consider the merits of a "sticky" topic. You may open the topic at your leisure.

~Philosoft - Philosophy moderator

DoubleDutchy

What was the question again ?
What is the point of philosophy ?

Clarity . It worked extremely well this time, you clarified your own ideas beyond reproach:

Take any disciplin you happen to be familiar with (calculus could be one) and substitute it for 'philosphy'. Then imagine somebody speaking the resulting sentence. All would be clear then, wouldn't it?
What more is there to be said ? You finally came to the point.

flatland

Beautiful. Just beautiful, DoubleDutchy.

Starboy

Excuse me, but falsifiability is the demarcation used in a particular philosophy of science. Scientists have been able to make the demarcation long before Popper. Such philosophies are not guidance for science but feeble attempts by philosophers to understand science.

I would like to point out that you have deflected the argument. The issue is not science but philosophy and its implicit and largely unacknowledged assumptions about reality and therefore the question if it has any competence to comment on anything based in reality. If you wish to make a credible defense of philosophy, you had best address these issues instead of redirecting the argument to something you want to talk about.

Hugo, you have demonstrated that you have some understanding of the difficulties of theory and experiment on nature and the difference between a theory of some or all of reality and reality itself, but what does this have to do with philosophy? The great bulk of philosophy doesn’t get it. Descartes may have been a philosophy genius but he was a science moron, but yet philosophers hold him up as a founding father of science. How can anyone take philosophy seriously as long as philosophers do this?

Yes, I am aware that there are and have been philosophers studying science, but why should scientists take any of the pronouncements of such philosophers seriously, especially in the light of philosophies loose grip at best on reality. As a scientist I would only take seriously someone doing the science of science. That would be a scientist studying science not a philosopher. If a historian decided to study science, perhaps what they produced might be of interest to other historians but why would scientists be interested (other than as recreational reading). The history of science is not science, and the same goes for the philosophy of science. It is very cheeky of philosophers to try to tell scientists their business.

This is so funny. You read the comments of a philosopher on science and you seem to think that it is relevant to science’s view of reality. There is a fundamental difference between the view of reality of science and that of philosophy. Whatever the view of science at any point of time, it is subject to actual tests on reality, and historically has been shown to change based on the results of the exploration of reality. Philosophy on the other hand has an accreted view of reality that goes back two thousand years ago that to this day is still being taught in philosophy courses, not as the history of philosophy but as philosophy.

Or it could be because I do not have the time.

Hugo, perhaps my attacks are flimsy, but your defense is non-existent. You have not addressed any of my criticisms of philosophy. Unless you count what appears to be the rubber stamp of philosophical arguments – “straw man”.

Starboy

Hugo Holbling

It speaks volumes that you are unable to follow my argument, philosophical (and therefore nonsense) though it may be. The moderators have not criticized my approach so i must assume that you are simply not getting it. The point is that your sweeping dismissal of philosophy as useless can be countered by provided a single example of the clear utility of our endeavour. That is what i am hoping to do here, using philosophy of science; whether i succeed or not hardly renders my attempt a "straw man". Try again.

I suppose you can back this up with examples of scientists who were discussing their work in this fashion before Popper? As usual, you are well wide of the mark. In those days verificationism or inductivism held sway, which is why Popper's ideas were considered so revolutionary.

I have already explained myself above, but you may take your own advice and do likewise; how about presenting a credible attack on philosophy, instead of your "baby with the bathwater" bluster?

I explained this previously: scientific experiment (or appeal to the authority of nature) doesn't mean anything in itself without the philosophy of science. My example made this clear enough, i think: the mug falling means the mug fell, but that's all, until an appropriate hermeneutic is applied by philosophy of science.

I hate to break it to you, but that was a long time ago. Philosophers of science, for example, are not science morons. You are welcome to check by going through Lakatos if you wish, but i suppose you "wouldn't have time", just as you seem to lack the time to try anything that would question your dogmatic dismissal. In any case, here you are again throwing the baby out with the bathwater - let's suppose that a certain percentage of philosophers are science morons, or morons in general with nothing useful to say; even if this percentage is getting up to 99%, that doesn't make your assertion that all of philosophy is useless any more credible.

And yet you imagine we moron philosophers should take your criticism of philosophy (and hence philosophy) seriously?

Wrong. It isn't a question of telling you your business, but rather asking what your business means. We've been over this before, but you still don't get it.

What's funny is that you have no idea who Fine is, so it seems, or else you wouldn't be so dismissive. He has a specialist knowledge of certain areas of science that leave him far better qualified to comment on it than you, i'll wager, but even if that isn't the case, some reading in the subject you propose to kill off would leave you less willing to ignore his remarks.

Ah, the old canard about no progress in philosophy. Once again, if you were willing to do some reading around the subject you'd realize how foolish this statement is, and how it merely demonstrates your intransigence. The philosophy of science, since we're on the subject, has hardly stood still as you describe, so there's the counter-example that kills your assertion already.

You haven't the time to read the philosophy you're dismissing, but you have the time to post here dismissing it? :boohoo:

phaedrus

???

DoubleDutchy

:notworthy Glad you liked it. I did so myself. But it won't help.

Frotiw

It is not possible to discuss constructively with a person who ignore(or reject without understand) the arguments. What else is there to say. I take we have reached a point where it is either a matter of pride(not wanting to give in) or simple ignorance. I don't think the arguments really matters anymore.

Frotiw

Oh btw. Descartes was a well respected scientist. Besides being a philosopher he was a physician and mathematician proberly best known for originating analytic geometry. His physics is not well known along with most other scientists at that time because they were all overthown by Newton. Nevertheless before Newton he was among the elite of physicians. In math cartesian coordinates are still well known and being used today. If you doubt my word(Staryboy) grab a history book or search the net.

Edit:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CartesianCoordinates.html

Just added a single link for your convinience.