Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

[Skepdick]

Well yeah, but I don't imagine NASA lost too much sleep over whether Newton could get them to the Moon and back.

I sure hope they lost some sleep over it! If it was to be a return trip for the astronauts...

My point is merely that the "accuracy" of any particular mathematical model can only be established by proxy of its adequacy for a particular purpose.
Which makes "adequacy" and "fitness" synonymous notions in practice.

Which leads us right back to where we started: What is philosophy fit/adequate for?

Telos.

[Skepdick]

Getting personal abuse is addictive to masochists.

What did Nietzsche say about things that don't kill you?

[uwot]

Well yeah, but I don't imagine NASA lost too much sleep over whether Newton could get them to the Moon and back.

I sure hope they lost some sleep over it! If it was to be a return trip for the astronauts...

Well, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the choice between Newton and Einstein on a trip to the Moon is going to make bugger all difference.

My point is merely that the "accuracy" of any particular mathematical model can only be established by proxy of its adequacy for a particular purpose.
Which makes "adequacy" and "fitness" synonymous notions in practice.

Can't see that purpose has any impact on accuracy.

Which leads us right back to where we started: What is philosophy fit/adequate for?

In case you missed it:

Philosophy is basically story telling. Since philosophy of science is my field, I'll stick to that. So whereas science examines phenomena, and is mostly concerned with generating mathematical models that describe the phenomena accurately, the job of philosophy is to provide conceptual models (paradigms in Kuhn's terms) that can be explored and developed logically. So for instance, Einstein's concept of warped spacetime as the cause of gravity is philosophy, while his field equations are science.

[Skepdick]

Well, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the choice between Newton and Einstein on a trip to the Moon is going to make bugger all difference.

But you do have to figure out what the error-margin in Newton's model is and whether it's tolerable for the task at hand. Only then do you conclude that you don't need Einstein.

Can't see that purpose has any impact on accuracy.

I think it was an interview with Frank Borman (from Apollo 8 ) where he mentioned that they landed 1.5 miles away from intended landing site.

Is that a lot? It would be if they were aiming to dock with anything. Imagine missing the ISS by 1.5 miles...

[Skepdick]

So for instance, Einstein's concept of warped spacetime as the cause of gravity is philosophy

I would call that a testable hypothesis, if the curvature of spacetime can be calculated (and it can), but "what's in a name?"

[Sculptor]

Getting personal abuse is addictive to masochists.

What did Nietzsche say about things that don't kill you?

Do they need to try harder?

[uwot]

But you do have to figure out what the error-margin in Newton's model is and whether it's tolerable for the task at hand. Only then do you conclude that you don't need Einstein.

Anyone with enough mathematical chops to be anywhere near NASA's telemetry department would know that the margin of error, something in the order of inches on a mission like Apollo 8, is tolerable.

I think it was an interview with Frank Borman (from Apollo 8 ) where he mentioned that they landed 1.5 miles away from intended landing site.

Well, Apollo 8 only landed in the Pacific ocean. The main problem was that NASA assumed that the Moon is gravitationally smooth. It isn't, there are several mass concentrations that bolloxed the predictions. Exactly the same would have happened if NASA had used general relativity.

Is that a lot? It would be if they were aiming to dock with anything. Imagine missing the ISS by 1.5 miles...

Bit of a roundabout journey, going to the Moon to reach something that is only 400km away.

[uwot]

So for instance, Einstein's concept of warped spacetime as the cause of gravity is philosophy

I would call that a testable hypothesis...

Really? How would you test it?

...if the curvature of spacetime can be calculated (and it can), but "what's in a name?"

The thing that can be calculated is the 'force of gravity'. This you do by observing the behaviour of massive objects. You can attribute that force to the curvature of spacetime, if that philosophical model pleases you, but we currently have no means of observing spacetime directly.

[Eodnhoj7]

The question is less of purpose but rather how is it not intertwined in the basic fabric of all knowledge? Phd means Doctor of Philosophy. What the sciences are, by admission of the academic title alone, is philosophy.

You are conflating science with academia.

So all the academics are wrong?

PhD also means "I have demonstrated ability to work crazy hours for years at a time for little to no pay and I am about to catch a wake up call that my academic credentials don't mean anything in practice."

And most real life engineers create a bunch of useless shit noone needs upon some false idea of convenience nobody can agree upon...One can look at the negatives in anything and always be right.

Philosophy at its root is "reflection" by nature

And reflection is not a group activity. So maybe Aristotle was right: know thyself.

Considering the self is a common bond among men, with certain inherently common qualities, it is not limited to the self alone. Philosophical discussions are one example.