Philosophy is useless

[reasonvemotion]

You're a bad father!

Ergo
You're wrong, your position is false, and you ought to be ignored and excluded from the general society.


Wonderful "reasoning", reasonvemotion. We all can see which side of the equation you veer towards!

Hint:
It's not the "reasoning" side.

LOL

Congratulations Satyr, you have been accepted at last. You are now officially "the leader of the herd and I, well I guess I will have to take the place that you once presided over.

[MGL]

if I convert the "masses" to my way of thinking.
....
It [Philosophy] trains people to puzzle about the meaning of words, and because they cannot be given precise meanings, one must wonder in a perpetual fog of meaningless intellectualism. That's all philosophy teaches one? That's the best defense a philosopher can muster for the discipline? How disappointing.
...
Science is science, not philosophy; otherwise, people graduating with philosophy degrees would be suited to work at CERN as physicists, or build computers, or cure disease, etc. Trying to justify the existence of philosophy at this juncture by claiming it gets credit for science, and by extension, people wasting their time studying non-scientific philosophy get credit for being useful makes no sense.
....
Now, the claim is that there is somehow value in not knowing anything, and just coming up with arguments. How so? If none of the arguments can be shown to be valid, who cares about them? There is not a single question that philosophy can answer that science can't. If science is stumped, then philosophy is not going to come in and save the day. And, if a philosopher did come up with an "answer," which was shown by science to be false, then what would happen? The philosophy would be junked by anyone with a rationally functioning brain.
....
While philosophers can learn how to argue, so can scientists, historians, attorneys, etc. So, what is gained by philosophy? It's not thinking skills because those exist quite well in physicists. It's not the tools to come up with answers, because one has to learn science for that.

The fact that you fail to realise the irony in your own comments betrays an inability to think clearly that would be easily remedied by a serious study of philosophy. The fact that you cannot appreciate the value of a sufficiently precise meaning of words ensures that you will be condemned to be inconsistent and unclear in whatever view you want to assert.

Even your understanding of what philosophy is seems profoundly mistaken. The sciences emerged from philosophy - and all sciences, to the extent they rely on reasoning and assumptions are still doing philosophy. The most profound advances in science were made by scientists thinking philosophically, some influenced by philosophers, coming up with radically new ideas. The debates within science, where there is currently insufficient empirical data or consensus to decide the matter, are effectively philosophical debates. When scientist clarify their conceptual terms, they are doing philosophy. Now that neuroscientist are attempting to understand consciousness, many of them are turning to the conceptual groundwork laid down in philosophy of mind and discussing the significance of their emprical work with philosophers.

If not some kind of moral philosophy, what science are you relying on to object to socialism and taxation? What is your "way of thinking" if it is not some kind of useless philosophy?

[Satyr]

LOL

Congratulations Satyr, you have been accepted at last. You are now officially "the leader of the herd and I, well I guess I will have to take the place that you once presided over.

You poor pathetic twat.

A herd of herbivores is not the same as a pack or a pride of carnivores.
The social instinct does not make you a herd, you moron.

But if leader I am then it beats being a dumb-assed follower...like you.

Keep munching away on that regurgitated fodder, cow.

[reasonvemotion]

You are past your prime,dumb ass. A sheep in a wolf's clothing.

[Satyr]

Ha!!
Still about me?
I will also die.
So?

Twat...you still haven't touched my ideas.

[ForgedinHell]

Science could never have discovered facts about anything without first asking philosophical questions.

That's actually not true, or, at least overly broad or overly optimistic. Science asks questions that can be answered. The entire body of science consists of statements that we have yet to prove false. Science progresses by asking questions where the answer may be falsified by some empirical evidence. Those are not philosophical questions, they are just questions capable of being addressed by science. To suggest, as you have done, that any question a scientist asks somehow makes the scientist a philosophy student is a disingenuous position. You would be stating everyone is a philosopher by definition without giving any real reason why people should study philosophy as a discipline.

Besides which, when you think about, how many philosophers ask about a method for proving the pythagorean theorem by using a water-filled fishtank and a standing pole? Knowing science, and math, helps to frame the questions that are likely to be asked in a way that someone just studying philosophy outright would never ask.

[ForgedinHell]

If there is a problem that cannot be answered by science and mathematics, then it most certainly cannot be answered by philosophy.

I have some sympathy with this, particularly around some of the more esoteric branches of philosophy that don't tend to interest me as much as ethics or political philosophy does. However, that said, science may provide answers to questions like "can we build a bigger bomb?", or "can we screen embryos for a tendency towards particular conditions?", or "can we send people to the Moon?" but it doesn't say anything about whether we should do these things or how we should use new technologies.

Fair enough, so science doesn't tell one not to stick people into a gas chamber to see how many can be killed in an hour, but neither does philosophy. Wasn't there a well-known philosopher who became the highlight of the nazi educational program? How come philosophy convinced him that being a nazi and killing children was a good thing? To the extent science may be without a soul, I have yet to see a scientist make excuses for mass murder, but philosophers cannot say the same with respect to the use of philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science could never have discovered facts about anything without first asking philosophical questions.

...
To suggest, as you have done, that any question a scientist asks somehow makes the scientist a philosophy student is a disingenuous position. You would be stating everyone is a philosopher by definition without giving any real reason why people should study philosophy as a discipline.

We do not state every adult is a sexologist by definition just because they are sexually active.

Philosophy in the widest sense is, the inherent acquisition and application of wisdom for the well-being of the individual and humanity.
As such, every human being has the philosophical tendency in various degrees, but we need not call everyone a philosopher. A philosopher, like the sexologist, study and research on philosophy or take it seriously on an intellectual basis.

Science proper has to start and is grounded on an dynamic scientific framework that establishes its concepts, rules, assumptions, etc. and this initiating and maintaing process is philosophy in action. The processes of abduction, imaginations (note Einstein) etc. that scientists used are of philosophical nature.
Philosophers who study this aspect are called philosophers of science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there is a problem that cannot be answered by science and mathematics, then it most certainly cannot be answered by philosophy.

I have some sympathy with this, particularly around some of the more esoteric branches of philosophy that don't tend to interest me as much as ethics or political philosophy does. However, that said, science may provide answers to questions like "can we build a bigger bomb?", or "can we screen embryos for a tendency towards particular conditions?", or "can we send people to the Moon?" but it doesn't say anything about whether we should do these things or how we should use new technologies.

Fair enough, so science doesn't tell one not to stick people into a gas chamber to see how many can be killed in an hour, but neither does philosophy. Wasn't there a well-known philosopher who became the highlight of the nazi educational program? How come philosophy convinced him that being a nazi and killing children was a good thing? To the extent science may be without a soul, I have yet to see a scientist make excuses for mass murder, but philosophers cannot say the same with respect to the use of philosophy.

Philosophy as defined in the widest sense is, 'the inherent acquisition and application of wisdom for the well-being of the individual and humanity' can only be progressively positive and never negative.

A 'philosopher' who study, research and philosophize do not necessary imply he/she has a higher level of wisdom quotient.

Philosophy is applied wisdom, self-corrective and as such is inherently good and never evil. Anything contrary to the above, e.g. mass killing, pathological behaviors, are not philosophical in essence.

[JasonPalmer]

In science and mathematics, one may discover truths, and answers, but in philosophy, all one encounters are arguments. In more than 3,000 years of argument, no philosopher has ever explained what is moral, what is immoral, or even if morality exists. If there is a problem that cannot be answered by science and mathematics, then it most certainly cannot be answered by philosophy. Therefore, aside from some entertainment value, philosophy serves no useful purpose. Ijn fact, it is rather harmful, because the time and energy one spends in studying philosophy could be better put to use studying math and science. Any takers?

A lot of people go study it and buy books, magazines on it.

Thus it remains.

A bit like a religion really, very few things are that usefull, but they remain.

Seen the olympics ?

[hossein]

In science and mathematics, one may discover truths, and answers, but in philosophy, all one encounters are arguments. In more than 3,000 years of argument, no philosopher has ever explained what is moral, what is immoral, or even if morality exists. If there is a problem that cannot be answered by science and mathematics, then it most certainly cannot be answered by philosophy. Therefore, aside from some entertainment value, philosophy serves no useful purpose. Ijn fact, it is rather harmful, because the time and energy one spends in studying philosophy could be better put to use studying math and science. Any takers?

science and mathematics are areas the resultant of which serves the mass, everybody, even the most simple and trivial people. they can go out "in the market" find "something good" and simply buy it; but you cannot find the answer of questions like what is good and what is bad, what is the best way for life or what is the key to happiness, what is the meaning of life, etc. by spending money! these answers just cannot be packed into ready to buy easy to handle productions which "everybody", no matter wise or foolish, mature or immature can "consume" them!!(another symptom of capitalistic way of looking to matters!). if you think otherwise you just simply getting things wrong, philosophy doesnt beg you hey come and buy me, buy my answers and findings; its just simply nonsense, the story is completely vice versa: even if it was the case you begged the princess philosophy for letting you in her palace there were no guarantee that you can earn anything. questioning the merit of philosophy in the way you did is exactly like questioning the value of art, a piece of music or a beautiful movie just because they are so subjective and idiosyncratic and every artist views the world and the matters differently or that no single "agreement" has been attained between artists, novelists or poets!!!
its hard to see why we just searching for "agreement" ? in the philosophy and art and also in the literature, what is important is not "agreement" but is beauty , transcendence maturity and growth; but not agreement! philosophies are different just because human beings and their paths unlike other species are different. however the more you study philosophies the more you see similarities and agreements instead of differences and diversities.
when you see some beautiful women, their face and body may differ but its not important their face are different, all of them are beautiful; what we are witnessing between the greatest philosophies is the incommensurability of beauties and maturities. the fact is, philosophy is not something lay people dont have and just some isolated people in the ivory tower have, its just that every body even the one who questions the use of "philosophy" has it, but there are people who just have more pure and beautiful philosophies and there are people who have dangerous harmful stupid philosophies and manythings in between. its like a spectrum the matter of degrees; right?
its really hard to read some pieces from Nietzsche or Schopenhauer and not to be inspired by just like listening a beautiful piece of music by Mozart or Wagner and not to feel elated. (Wagner himself was greatly inspired by Schopenhauer)
and remember in philosophy unlike technology its not the outcome of the process which is important, its more the "process" which is important.
linked closely to life with all its frustrations and failures, intractable situations and insoluble problems, philosophy is human life itself.

[ForgedinHell]

if I convert the "masses" to my way of thinking.
....
It [Philosophy] trains people to puzzle about the meaning of words, and because they cannot be given precise meanings, one must wonder in a perpetual fog of meaningless intellectualism. That's all philosophy teaches one? That's the best defense a philosopher can muster for the discipline? How disappointing.
...
Science is science, not philosophy; otherwise, people graduating with philosophy degrees would be suited to work at CERN as physicists, or build computers, or cure disease, etc. Trying to justify the existence of philosophy at this juncture by claiming it gets credit for science, and by extension, people wasting their time studying non-scientific philosophy get credit for being useful makes no sense.
....
Now, the claim is that there is somehow value in not knowing anything, and just coming up with arguments. How so? If none of the arguments can be shown to be valid, who cares about them? There is not a single question that philosophy can answer that science can't. If science is stumped, then philosophy is not going to come in and save the day. And, if a philosopher did come up with an "answer," which was shown by science to be false, then what would happen? The philosophy would be junked by anyone with a rationally functioning brain.
....
While philosophers can learn how to argue, so can scientists, historians, attorneys, etc. So, what is gained by philosophy? It's not thinking skills because those exist quite well in physicists. It's not the tools to come up with answers, because one has to learn science for that.

The fact that you fail to realise the irony in your own comments betrays an inability to think clearly that would be easily remedied by a serious study of philosophy. The fact that you cannot appreciate the value of a sufficiently precise meaning of words ensures that you will be condemned to be inconsistent and unclear in whatever view you want to assert.

Even your understanding of what philosophy is seems profoundly mistaken. The sciences emerged from philosophy - and all sciences, to the extent they rely on reasoning and assumptions are still doing philosophy. The most profound advances in science were made by scientists thinking philosophically, some influenced by philosophers, coming up with radically new ideas. The debates within science, where there is currently insufficient empirical data or consensus to decide the matter, are effectively philosophical debates. When scientist clarify their conceptual terms, they are doing philosophy. Now that neuroscientist are attempting to understand consciousness, many of them are turning to the conceptual groundwork laid down in philosophy of mind and discussing the significance of their emprical work with philosophers.

If not some kind of moral philosophy, what science are you relying on to object to socialism and taxation? What is your "way of thinking" if it is not some kind of useless philosophy?

The fact is that scientists don't waste their time with philosophy and consider the discipline of philosophy of science as a waste of time. For example, scientists wouldn't waste their time on the childish word-games you play. This is also a reason why many lay people don't think much of philosophers either. Anyone, even small children, can play games regarding the imprecision of words. Anything anyone writes or says is always subject to some knucklehead claiming "you were imprecise, you need to study philosophy." Since I am already well aware I can write those words in response to an argument, I believe I can save a lot of time and energy by not studying philsophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact is that scientists don't waste their time with philosophy and consider the discipline of philosophy of science as a waste of time.
For example, scientists wouldn't waste their time on the childish word-games you play. This is also a reason why many lay people don't think much of philosophers either. Anyone, even small children, can play games regarding the imprecision of words. Anything anyone writes or says is always subject to some knucklehead claiming "you were imprecise, you need to study philosophy." Since I am already well aware I can write those words in response to an argument, I believe I can save a lot of time and energy by not studying philsophy.

Above is based on ignorance. If you do not have a sufficient coverage of knowledge in the various fields, it would be better to suspend judgment, rather than play 'god' and jump in with the above certainty.

Many scientists who explore the edges of ultimate knowledge will appreciate the critical importance of philosophy.

Note Daniel Dennett, Thomas Metzinger, Sam Harris, Vittorio Gallese, and others.
Vittorio Gallese is professor of human physiology at the University of Parma, Italy with appointments in the departments of neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. He is an expert in neurophysiology, neuroscience, social neuroscience, and philosophy of mind. Gallese is one of the discoverers of mirror neurons.

[Atthet]

Philosophy in the widest sense is, the inherent acquisition and application of wisdom for the well-being of the individual and humanity.

This demonstrates the premise of this philosophy forum, "humanism", secular humanism to be exact.

This forum, philosophy now, is a Judaeo-Christian forum, disguising itself with terms such as atheism, agnosticism, and secularism. Beneath the lies, the religion and cultic demagoguery, is perfectly preserved without a single doubt or criticism aimed against it. All are human. All are equal, before God. And evil is caused by insufficient or inadequate "education", never genetic pollution.....

If philosophy is only about humanity, and individuals, then doesn't a conflict of interest develop between the individual and his humanity? It does, it must! This is the point when the pleasure principle overrides common sense, decency, and reason. Humanism is nothing more, ultimately, than immediate self-gratification. But who does it soothe and coddle, except, the weakest element of human nature, and the most disgusting elements of human societies.

Aren't child raping pedophiles also human, don't they deserve our love and respect too?????? This is the point where secular humanity, liberal "philosophers" cannot think beyond its premise. It is limited, like a Christian or Jew crossing the boundaries of God.

[ForgedinHell]

The fact is that scientists don't waste their time with philosophy and consider the discipline of philosophy of science as a waste of time.
For example, scientists wouldn't waste their time on the childish word-games you play. This is also a reason why many lay people don't think much of philosophers either. Anyone, even small children, can play games regarding the imprecision of words. Anything anyone writes or says is always subject to some knucklehead claiming "you were imprecise, you need to study philosophy." Since I am already well aware I can write those words in response to an argument, I believe I can save a lot of time and energy by not studying philsophy.

Above is based on ignorance. If you do not have a sufficient coverage of knowledge in the various fields, it would be better to suspend judgment, rather than play 'god' and jump in with the above certainty.

Many scientists who explore the edges of ultimate knowledge will appreciate the critical importance of philosophy.

Note Daniel Dennett, Thomas Metzinger, Sam Harris, Vittorio Gallese, and others.
Vittorio Gallese is professor of human physiology at the University of Parma, Italy with appointments in the departments of neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. He is an expert in neurophysiology, neuroscience, social neuroscience, and philosophy of mind. Gallese is one of the discoverers of mirror neurons.

Go look up Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists who ever lived, he made fun of philosophers all the time. Hawking just wrote a book about a year ago stating, "philosophy was dead." Edward Wislon's latest book clearly states that philosophy will never give us answers, but science does. Lawrence Krauss hangs out with many of the people you listed, and he stated that while he appreciates AC Grayling helping him with philosophy, that scientists don't waste time on philosophy of science. Dennett by the way is a philosopher, not a scientist. Harris barely earned a doctorate in his 40s, and his thesis was junk, and formed the basis for his book, A Moral Landscape. I'm not familiar with the other two, but couldn't care less.