Philosophy Now Forum

Noax wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:54 am

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:24 pm It's a subtle point - the interpretation of calculus can pertain to its practical function while the interpretations of QM more concern abstract notions of what reality is "actually" like, although the latter interpretations have the potential to open up or close subsequent lines of research - to become practical.

If only some interpretations have this potential for practical research (quantum computing I presume?), then there would be an empirical difference, and it would become science, not just philosophy. Not sure if quantum computing depends on a certain interpretation since they all have superposition states.

Lurendrejer wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:41 pm ..according to a friend of mine.
We discussed several things but he keep claiming science and philosophy has no place togethers and basically equal philosophy to theology and philosophies to religions.
How do i argue to him that newton, Einstein and other people formulated their findings within views of the universe, as for example mechanism? That doing science is meaningless without a philosphy to propel one forward?

Context of the photo is that he thinks philosphy does not Try to understand reality whereas that it was science Does.
Translation of the photo:
Him: [philosophy]it Does not matter/is pointless
Me: What is your problem with philosophy?
Him: that it is only People’s projections of What they do not understand/comprehend
Him: and see connections which are not real
Him: it is pseudoscience

Do give me your thoughts, because i feel like this is actually a very common perspective at least from where i am from, and obviously not something i agere with

Philosophy, as the love of knowledge, is not limited to the scientific method however it is not against it either. The majority of the scientific method was founded through philosophical schools ranging from Pythagoras and Thales, in regards to mathematics as the foundation of many the sciences, to philosophers in the late middle ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It is strictly a technique, or perspective through which one observes, that is founded in circular and linear reasoning. The origins of its processes are founded with the nature of reasoning itself as abductive, deductive, and inductive. However its study of physical phenomena are strictly limited to those physical phenomena and do not extend strictly into the realms of logic alone, although both realities do reflect one another.

You have to keep in mind that when philosophy is accused of being religious, with religion fundamentally being "dogma" as blind belief, you have to understand who is saying this. Modern science is dogmatic in many respects:

Dark matter as "existing" however it is unseeable.

The scientific method being founded in a circular reasoning most scientists find contradictory to linear reasoning.

The scientific method having flaws in the advent of quantum mechanics (repeating the same steps does not result in the same results, unless practiced multiple times, ie. double slit experiment.)

Most modern science merely being unprovable theories.

The process of hypothesis being dependent upon metaphysics to some degree (ie. Einstein's view of space/time.)

etc.

Even under these circumstance the scientific process has not agreeable foundation for what constitutes ethics, and its processes suffer because of it where most "discoveries" are not truths about the nature world but rather a means to "change" physical reality...into what exactly? The scientific process cannot answer that question except under the term "whatever the financers want".

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/genie/pdf/Co ... cience.pdf

In these respects science has become a religion of transmutation rather than one predominantly obsessed with the discover of truth. A separate perspective may argue that science in itself has become a religion as religion offer this very same method of transmutation. Furthermore, science has not provided answers for these very same problems of what is the nature of ethics, ie a way to "be".

The simple truth is that most scientists, specifically physicists, are poor logicians because of their need to "see" rather than "reason". Science does not hold the answers to the material world precisely because it cannot transcend above the very same problem it seeks to understand. It see materiality through the lense of materiality and in these respects it is horribly blind.

It does not give answer to the question of the geometric and numeric forms, something its uses for definition, as it has not identified the "particle" which relate to form the very observation it requires to observe. In simple terms it is unable to self-reflect, and in many respects it seeks to establish the nature of "origins" without looking at its own.

In another respect, much of its evidence is dependent not on the evidence itself but rather how it is interpreted. Science, without logic and metaphysics, is not properly equipped to give accounts of interpretation. Modern sciences interpretation of physical phenomena differs very little than ancient readings of tea leaves, stars, or animal organs...the only difference is what they "read" for signs differs. Even the "sacrifice" has changed from a stone altar to a steel table, with the nature of sacrifice as a means to mediate a form of divinity in the search for knowledge and power. What has change is that instead of searching for answer from a higher power, the search for knowledge ends with a mediation to one's "ego".

It cannot give an account as to the very same nature of measurement it requires in order to exists, and is blind as to its own origins. Neither can it give a definition as to what "matter" is other than "stuff" which must be believed in, and yet it was founded on the study of the very same matter it knows nothing about. So what does it do, specifically physics? Redefined what it studies in an effort to maintain its own relevance.

Neither does it question the rational problems of the very same technologies it requires, as these technologlies in an effort to understand the world also inherently change it.

The only "real" science is metaphysics, in my opinion, as it deals with these very same foundations without trying to avoid them.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 am

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:15 pm Philosophy is basically logic. What you do is start with a premise or two and try to create a logically valid argument based on them. In essence, it's story telling.

Would that that were true. However logic as used by philosophers is not a rigorous process of inference.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amWhile pure logic is rigorous, when applied to concepts, it loses its rigour.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amEven syllogisms are not rigorous.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amIf this were not so then one might have to conclude that a peanut butter sandwich was better than perfection.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amAnd yet many would-be philosophers believe in the sanctity of logic as though it is a God-given certainty.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amHence the assertion that philosophy has similarities to religion.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amSo what you are left with is personal opinions and personal beliefs, even if those beliefs include the belief that one knows the one and only truth.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amAnd people write these opinions as those they were unique truths, and so they end up writing BS.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amAnd the difficulty is that there is no known objective or logical process that enables the gems to de distinguished and separated from the BS.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 amHume's fork is the only suggested process, but it is ignored by most philosophers. But if it were not ignored 95% of philosophical writing would be 'cast into the flames'.

A_Seagull wrote:... And yet many would-be philosophers believe in the sanctity of logic as though it is a God-given certainty. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:55 am

A_Seagull wrote:... And yet many would-be philosophers believe in the sanctity of logic as though it is a God-given certainty. ...

Well to be fair it is a certainty that if anything exists, 'God' or not, then the rules of Logic apply to it.

A_Seagull wrote:Not really.

Logic as a deductive system only applies to simple elements. What is perceived to exist in the world may not be simple elements. The so called rules of logic only applies to the labels for those things that are thought to exist, not the things themselves. And in any case logic only applies to conditionals: if... a then b. It says nothing about what actually is the case.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:33 pm

A_Seagull wrote:Not really.

Logic as a deductive system only applies to simple elements. What is perceived to exist in the world may not be simple elements. The so called rules of logic only applies to the labels for those things that are thought to exist, not the things themselves. And in any case logic only applies to conditionals: if... a then b. It says nothing about what actually is the case.

I sort of agree with the last sentence as I'd be an Empiricist if pushed but to me I think it doesn't matter if the elements are simple or not as from my point of view Logic arises exactly from their being things and a world and as such it is impossible for things not to follow the laws of Logic. Of course to symbolise this you need thinking things.

You don't need the material conditional you can do it with 'not something or something else'.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:21 pm

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:33 pm

A_Seagull wrote:Not really.

Logic as a deductive system only applies to simple elements. What is perceived to exist in the world may not be simple elements. The so called rules of logic only applies to the labels for those things that are thought to exist, not the things themselves. And in any case logic only applies to conditionals: if... a then b. It says nothing about what actually is the case.

I sort of agree with the last sentence as I'd be an Empiricist if pushed but to me I think it doesn't matter if the elements are simple or not as from my point of view Logic arises exactly from their being things and a world and as such it is impossible for things not to follow the laws of Logic. Of course to symbolise this you need thinking things.

You don't need the material conditional you can do it with 'not something or something else'.

But where do these laws of logic come from? Are they empirical or rational? And if they are rational, what is their rational foundation?

A_Seagull wrote:But where do these laws of logic come from? ...

Are they empirical or rational? And if they are rational, what is their rational foundation?