Starboy

Yikes, I appear to have touched a nerve. Sorry about that. Perhaps all of those philosophers did indeed demolish my vapid, tepid, insipid and outmoded view (did I leave anything out). But this discussion appears to be getting nowhere. I had hoped that you could illuminate the darkness of my ignorance, but alas you continue to insist that the only cure for it is more philosophy. If someone asked me questions about QM or EM, I am pretty sure I could give them a quick treatment without requiring them to read Schiff or Jackson. This doesn't appear to be the case with philosophy. Maybe this is because the ideas of science are embedded in our culture and are relevant and those of philosophy are not.

Be that as it may, have a nice day.

Starboy

Nowhere357

My first idea is very simple. Ignore Starboy. Let's try to make some progress here.

Bluenose

"The facts of experience are summarized in the sciences. ...this book is an interpretation of science, but is not itself science. .... Philosophy in all its branches relies upon science and has no organized subject matter apart from the facts set forth by science. It is the responsibility of the scientist to gather the facts for the philosopher to interpret."

That quote is from the preface of a book you all will never guess

Starboy

Okay Bluenose, I give up.

flatland

kennyminot:

Interestingly, the device that we are all using to discuss this is founded on logic gates, which use the 'and' and 'or' operators from formal logic. Computing may have been constructed by engineers, but it was thought up by logicians.

Bluenose

Before I name the book, I will include it in my posts to Hugo's book list

Hi Starboy,
First, I would like you to tell us what is wrong with that quote.
Second, Are there any books you would like to reccomend on history of science or say any of the "science and religion" books you think would be best for our friends who are recent deconverts or just new to our boards.

BTW I am again having ISP problems so may not be able reply in a timely manner.

Starboy

Hi Bluenose,

I am not sure you would find many scientists today that thought that their responsibility was to gather facts for philosophers to interpret. And I am not sure you would find many philosophers today that thought that philosophy relied upon science for its subject matter, at least none of the philosophers who have posted on this thread. As far as I can tell philosophers get most of their subject matter from other philosophers.

As for recommending books for recent deconverts I can't help much there. I've been a dyed in the wool atheist all my life. In regards to reading material on science, get a subscription to Science News. It doesn’t go into great detail but couple that with a Google search and you can stay up on just about any area of science there is. Half the science there has ever been is being created as we post. It is a great time for science. If you want to get a taste of what it is like to explore reality I suggest taking up amateur astronomy. Also, there used to be a great column in Scientific American called "The Amateur Scientist". When I was a kid it was Stong that got me started. Science is one of those things like music where it is a lot more fun to experience it first hand rather than read about it, but reading about it is fun too.

Starboy

Bluenose

"As for recommending books for recent converts I can't help much there. I've been a dyed in the wool atheist all my life. " Starboy

Sorry, I thought "recent deconverts" was Infidelspeak for new atheists, freethinkers or others liberated from the opium of religion.

Starboy

Oops, typo. Left out the 'de'.

Answerer

Well, I don't think Einstein or Newton did that and I don't believe any philosophers(without a deep mathematical and scientific background) will come out with any relevant theories for any newly discovered experimental evidences .