Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Congrats Uwot!

Ta very much. Your Frida Kahlo is a thing of beauty. (Love the pine!)

Thanks Uwot

AMod wrote:One of ours makes it to the mag

Yes, indeed - and it is the lead article for the issue, as well!

Thanks for that, Will (Uwot)- it is a very enjoyable, readable piece and told me a lot I didn't know.

RickLewis wrote:

AMod wrote:One of ours makes it to the mag

Yes, indeed - and it is the lead article for the issue, as well!

Thanks for that, Will (Uwot)- it is a very enjoyable, readable piece and told me a lot I didn't know.

Congrats uwot. A very good read.

Ginkgo wrote:

RickLewis wrote:

AMod wrote:One of ours makes it to the mag

Yes, indeed - and it is the lead article for the issue, as well!

Thanks for that, Will (Uwot)- it is a very enjoyable, readable piece and told me a lot I didn't know.

Congrats uwot. A very good read.

And very good of you to say so. Thank you Rick and Ginkgo.

As this article points out science doesn't really need philosophy. But philosophy needs science. Otherwise, where would philosophy get its grist from.

Well, there is always history for philosophy to draw on. But history is not progressive like science. Nevertheless, we can continue to argue about things like what caused WW1 or what caused the financial crisis of 2008. Philosophizing about history can help us avoid future catastrophes. However, it is science that ultimately keeps history going.

Philosophy is more than about storytelling and putting things into context. It facilitates other disciplines. It facilitates science. It gave birth to the sciences. Today it helps keep differing factions of believers, e.g. progressives and traditionalists, from going to war with each other. For that purpose philosophy invented pragmatism, which facilitates and brokers, in education and law, a common ground for coexistence.

Perhaps it is not so visible that the 'hard' sciences need philosophy. But the 'soft' sciences do. The soft sciences are those of human governance. By philosophizing in these sciences we can formulate methods of how to improve and govern better. I would say the philosophizing about hard science serves the same purpose.

spike wrote:Philosophy is more than about storytelling and putting things into context. It facilitates other disciplines.

I think most disciplines reflect on what they do, as a minimum there will be some epistemology involved, some rationale for why what they say is, at least, valuable, or if they are bold or foolish, true.
One of the points I make in the article is that some questions don't make any difference to science. The Pre-Socratic philosophers, in particular the Milesians and wider Ionians were all arguing about what 'element' was primordial. Anaximander made the point that we can't tell what the universe is actually made of, we can only perceive the properties hot/cold, wet/dry. Things have moved on a bit, obviously, but the point is still true. For all that we know about how fundamental particles behave, we don't know what they are made of. Whether that matters is a philosophical question; science doesn't actually need to know to be effective.
I think science and philosophy start with a sense of wonder, to paraphrase Aristotle. The outputs are different though, the raison d'etre of science is to discover and control; whereas philosophy, as it pertains to the natural world seeks to discover (actually good philosophers leave that to science, as you suggest) and explain.

spike wrote:Today it helps keep differing factions of believers, e.g. progressives and traditionalists, from going to war with each other.

It's a shame it doesn't do that better, but yes; there is more to philosophy than natural philosophy.

spike wrote:The soft sciences are those of human governance. By philosophizing in these sciences we can formulate methods of how to improve and govern better. I would say the philosophizing about hard science serves the same purpose.

The harder the science, the less it needs philosophy, I think. It is very difficult to define science in a way that covers everything that people do in the name of science, but a characteristic of the harder sciences is their acceptance of the empirical truth that the world does what it does irrespective of what we think about it.

uwot wrote:but a characteristic of the harder sciences is their acceptance of the empirical truth that the world does what it does irrespective of what we think about it.

This is true. But what I want to say is that philosophy has helped us realize these truths and not deny them, as some cultures have, as though they are ideologies or mere social constructs. Hericlitus and Hegel taught us that the world is always in flux like nature is. Darwin showed us that we are part of nature and not just a separate, special entity. Philosophers have helped rid us of superstitions about nature and taught us that we can work with it and use it to our advantage. As a result many of us live and work in human governance that is open to change and not resistant to it.

Closed systems, science has shown, collapse due to a build up of entropy. We can point to parallels in human governance that have behaved in the some manner. Philosophy has helps us understand this.

spike wrote:

uwot wrote:but a characteristic of the harder sciences is their acceptance of the empirical truth that the world does what it does irrespective of what we think about it.

This is true.

This is spoken straight out the ass.

If all truths was just to observe things, then scammers would have a too easy way to fool people.

HexHammer wrote:This is spoken straight out the ass.

Ah! Mr Hammer; how good of you to join us.

HexHammer wrote:If all truths was just to observe things,

Who said it is?

HexHammer wrote:then scammers would have a too easy way to fool people.

What mangled logic leads you to that?

spike wrote:..what I want to say is that philosophy has helped us realize these truths and not deny them, as some cultures have, as though they are ideologies or mere social constructs.

You are pushing against an open door if you are trying to persuade me that philosophy is a good thing. I think the main contribution of philosophy may be its very first. What distinguished Thales is that he recognised that the fact that a story is coherent doesn't mean it is true. That is true about ideologies, mere social constructs, religious beliefs and even scientific hypotheses. So while Mr Hammer is right that there is more to truth than observation, it is observation that is the final arbiter of what actually happens, even if, ultimately, observation cannot tell you to what, or why.

uwot,

I'm not quite sure what you said above but here is my latest:

We do live in social constructs. Why, because they benefit most of us. And many of these constructs aren't built willy-nilly but through experience and within certain physical restrains. So there is a truth there, not just storytelling.

Moreover, I think you can say that some social constructs are more beneficial than others, some philosophies better than others and that religion can be a hindrance to development. There are truths within those things.

Now, if you think we live in a random world with no meaning, then the truth can vary or be arbitrary; then the truth is what you make it. But if you are like me and see a direction to human existence you see truths in what works and what doesn't.

One big truth is that the world has become more complex and we have to devise philosophies to keep up with it, not just story tell or make up natives.

I just read and article saying that progress is also a narratives, like it doesn't really exist. I can't understand that. I see progress, not just technological progress but progress in human relations and human governance. Why sometimes we see backward steps being made in our progress, like in social progress, is because we tend to take things for granted, becoming lazy and complacent about it, and think things will happen on their own. It's always a work in progress, which I'd say is also a truth.

spike wrote:uwot,

I'm not quite sure what you said above

Sorry about that. Basically, I was saying that like you, I think philosophy is important. It puts things into a context that makes it easier to make sense of the world. The point about Thales is that he realised that there could be any number of contexts. All the ancient mythologies that he would have been familiar with, believed in the transmutation of elements: water, earth, air and fire all changing into each other.
Thales' student, Anaximander, saw that there were different versions of this loosely scientific idea. What was 'true' was that we can perceive qualities, he identified hot and cold, wet and dry. Today physicists think in terms of mass, charge and spin (colour too) of fundamental particles. It is the properties of things we can measure, rather than the thing itself (the 'ding an sich' as Kant called it).
The Pythagoreans came up with different mathematical models and the Eleatics had their own logical models.
In a sense all of the different hypotheses, theories, or even just stories were different social constructs, as the mythologies clearly were; the point is: that is still true today.
The empirical evidence is the same for everyone, you might have to do a bit of research, but there is little scientific evidence that can be kept secret for long, even by conspiracy nuts (technology on the other hand, can be very hush-hush). Even so, there are communities (fairly loosely defined) of very hard nosed scientists that interpret things differently to other equally hard nosed communities, just as there are different communities that interpret the same holy text differently. There is of course, a very big difference; people arguing for a particular interpretation of empirical evidence know that ultimately that evidence could prove them wrong, and however grudgingly, they are bound to accept it, or become irrelevant.

spike wrote:but here is my latest:

We do live in social constructs. Why, because they benefit most of us. And many of these constructs aren't built willy-nilly but through experience and within certain physical restrains. So there is a truth there, not just storytelling.

Well, the truth is that some stories are useful.

spike wrote:Moreover, I think you can say that some social constructs are more beneficial than others, some philosophies better than others and that religion can be a hindrance to development. There are truths within those things.

I think it is true that some social constructs are more beneficial than others, but it doesn't follow that they contain 'truths', unless you define 'true' as 'beneficial'.

spike wrote:Now, if you think we live in a random world with no meaning, then the truth can vary or be arbitrary; then the truth is what you make it.

That's not how I understand truth. I think the truth is what it is regardless we make of it.

spike wrote:But if you are like me and see a direction to human existence you see truths in what works and what doesn't.

Well, if you choose to equate truth with utility, that is entirely your prerogative, but it will lead to confusion when discussing truth with people who see it differently.

spike wrote:One big truth is that the world has become more complex and we have to devise philosophies to keep up with it, not just story tell or make up natives.

It's a moot point whether we need philosophies, but since people are going to have them anyway, it is wise to arm yourself, intellectually and sometimes physically, against the bad ones.

spike wrote:I just read and article saying that progress is also a narratives, like it doesn't really exist. I can't understand that.

I don't know the article, I assume it wasn't talking about technological progress. How much social progress we have made is debatable, but there is definitely work to be done.

spike wrote:I see progress, not just technological progress but progress in human relations and human governance. Why sometimes we see backward steps being made in our progress, like in social progress, is because we tend to take things for granted, becoming lazy and complacent about it, and think things will happen on their own. It's always a work in progress, which I'd say is also a truth.

Well, yes; we're not perfect and we don't know everything; that is true.

Thanks, uwot

Well, if you choose to equate truth with utility, that is entirely your prerogative, but it will lead to confusion when discussing truth with people who see it differently.

Well, it is a confusing world.

On the subject of utility, science and philosophy together have created that which we find utilitarian.

spike wrote:On the subject of utility, science and philosophy together have created that which we find utilitarian.

Depends what you mean by utilitarian; you could make a case for shoemaking.

Depends what you mean by utilitarian; you could make a case for shoemaking.

Well, how many ways are there in making a shoe? Basically shoes are made the same way all over the world. The way of making shoes has come from experience and the most efficient way to make them.

Someone said the day has come when shoes can be made by the method of 3D printing. Now that could change the conventional utilitarian way of making shoes.