Philosophy Now Forum

Logic wrote:
Time and time I observe that ontological questions lead to answers which are untestable and unfalsifiable
This happens so frequently that I am convinced ontological inquiry is a procedural error in this universe

Ontological questions are untestable and unfalsifiable because philosophy does not provide answers
Its function is to make sure that the right kind of questions are being asked but nothing beyond this

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:08 am Ontological questions are untestable and unfalsifiable because philosophy does not provide answers
Its function is to make sure that the right kind of questions are being asked but nothing beyond this

Hence my point "What is X?" is the wrong kind of question.

If philosophy isn't in the business of providing answers, then it should also stay out of the business of asking stupid questions.

Logic wrote:
What is X is NEVER the right kind of question

Philosophical questions are there to guide understanding rather than provide answers
For they are not like scientific questions which are there in order to provide answers

Philosophy pertains to wisdom rather than knowledge
Wisdom is not about facts but something more subtle

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:19 am

Logic wrote:
What is X is NEVER the right kind of question

Philosophical questions are there to guide understanding rather than provide answers
For they are not like scientific questions which are there in order to provide answers

Philosophy pertains to wisdom rather than knowledge
Wisdom is not about facts but something more subtle

There is fuckall wisdom in "What is X". It's a dead-end.

If you know THAT it is a dead-end question and you insist on asking it; or worse - you insist asking it TO others; you are intentionally sabotaging understanding.

Let me demonstrate.

What is a photon? A particle.
What is a particle? A minute portion of matter.
What is matter? substance.
What is substance? matter.

What have you learned so far other than synonyms?

Logic wrote:
There is fuckall wisdom in What is X

If true is all philosophical questioning a complete waste of time then ?
Is philosophy a redundant discipline that has outlasted its usefulness ?
Should all philosophers instead become scientists or mathematicians ?

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:57 am What does science DO? Science observes.

Sure.

Well, no, scientists observe.

You see, science IS not a scientist. Science doesn't do anything. It's all done by scientist, because science IS not a scientist.

So, science IS the activity of observation.

Anyway. Sure, if an activity is observation, then somebody will do something. We all understand that. Your fundamental mistake is that you think you can legislate BEING out of the picture. This is plain idiotic. There EXIST an x such that Fx. Not me saying that, mathematicians. They merely formalised the way we talk about things that we take to be existing. We wouldn't know how to do otherwise and there's no problem in that. You are confusing the real problem that communication is necessarily a protracted business with your Ayatollah ideology that our notion of BEING is responsible. You see, if some X does something at all, it's because X exists to begin with. And asking what is X is merely asking what are the component part of X and what each part is doing. And, of course, in doing that, we've merely pushed back the envelop, we've gone down one turtle, or replaced one turtle by many turtles. That's exactly what science has done all along and now they are talking about quarks, photons, leptons and what not nobody has ever actually seen.

So, philosophers do it, but we all do it, and mathematicians and scientists also all do it.

So, where's the problem already?!
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:38 am So, science IS the activity of observation.

Anyway. Sure, if an activity is observation, then somebody will do something. We all understand that. Your fundamental mistake is that you think you can legislate BEING out of the picture.

Strawman. I am trying to legislate being INTO the picture.

Observe. You are doing exactly that which you accuse me, buy removing the observer from "the activity of observation"!

Science is a methodology used for obtaining facts about the observable world
The word is derived from the Latin root scientia which pertains to knowledge

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:38 am There EXIST an x such that Fx. Not me saying that, mathematicians.

Your contrarianism just doesn't know when to stop making my arguments for me.

All functions ( Fx )are Black boxes

Input (x) -> (DO SOMETHING) -> output

There exists a photon such that F(E, h,c, λ) = hc /λE = 1

All functions describe BEHAVIOUR

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:38 am So, where's the problem already?!
EB

The problem is that every black box's transfer characteristics are ALWAYS specified in respect to time, and you believe time is uncountable.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:35 pm it makes Reals in [0,1] a possible model[/b].... In fact, all infinities are countable, but not the way you suggest I try to go about it.

http://mathonline.wikidot.com/the-set-o ... ncountable

Logik, by "what they do" do you perhaps mean how they relate to other concepts? I think that your question falls within enquiry about identity and differentiation.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:55 am

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:07 am

HexHammer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:41 am Most who ask "what is X" need to know what it is before they will ask "what does X do?"

I have a trivial way to test your claim...

HexHammer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:41 am science, psychology, general news

Please can you tell us what "science", "psychology" and "news" ARE without telling us what they DO? e.g don't use any verbs to describe them.

???
Where's the problem exactly?

Science n.
1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena: new advances in science and technology.

See?
That's all essentially irrelevant to the issue, of course, but you've yet again proved you're abysmally ignorant.
You're also a triple idiot since you can't even think of checking a dictionary whether your question won't reflex badly on your mental abilities.
EB

As an ersatz grammarian, I would like to resolve the apparent contradiction of verbs and nouns.

As is commonly known, a verb describes action or existence, e.g. the verb, “to speak” or the verb,
“to be”; a noun references people, locations or things.

“Observation” is a noun derived from the verb, “to observe”. When a noun is derived from a verb, it is called a gerund. So, in the case of “observation”, the noun names a thing; the thing is an action. A gerund is a special instance of the classification that consists of nouns; a gerund cannot exist without a verb upon which it can depend.

BTW, both “is” and “are” are present tense forms of the intransitive verb, “to be”.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing. First, if a post describing what science is uses the phrase, “science is”, it is not a sentence that does not include a verb, and, therefore, is one that supports Logik’s implication that there is no one who can best his challenge. Second, Logik’s argument, though grammatically correct for the most part, does not rely on grammar.

To be is to do. - Socrates, 267 B.C.

To do is to be. - Sartre, 1961 A.D.

"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra, 1967.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:19 amIf you were unable to make a worth-while argument you should've remained silent.

No, for you have impaired cognitive abilities so my words would be a wasted effort.

HexHammer wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:26 am

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:19 amIf you were unable to make a worth-while argument you should've remained silent.

No, for you have impaired cognitive abilities so my words would be a wasted effort.

Yet you continue to waste words on me, oh Mighty Cognition!

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:11 pmSo I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

I agree with your point, but am infinitely pissed off with the use of infinitely, so alas, I must disagree.