Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Of course I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US, science isn't taught with philosophy, not even in college. I did study philosophy in college as an elective.

To add, in my daily life, I've yet to encounter someone who showed an interest in philosophy. Also, to add, science is taught on an empirical basis over here.

PhilX

Empiricism was invented by philosophy.

The best scientists are philosophers too, as at a higher level you have to do more than just gather data and describe what they find. Higher physics is a metaphysical proposition.

Not quite, philosophers doesn't test their results like scientists, thus philosophers only deals with empirical data thus can't have their findings tested, thus it's no different than medieval superstition when their empirical findings wasn't verified.

I've already told you that your level of education is not up to the task that you are attempting.

Let's take the first fragment; "Not quite, philosophers doesn't test their results like scientists". I think you meant to say; "philosophers do not test their results like scientists..". Then you continue; " thus philosophers only deals with empirical data". I think you meant to say;"thus philosophers only deal with empirical data".
As well as being ungrammatical, none of this is true. You have a false conclusion signalled by the word "thus". This is what philosophers call a non sequitur. Not only is it a false conclusion but it is wrong. Philosophers do not only deal with empirical data but much more besides. Then you laughingly close you clause with yet another "thus" offering a double whammy in non sequitur terms by ramming home a false tautology (its a circular argument FYI).
And if that was not enough you offer the dumbest conclusion yet because you simply do not have the slightest appreciation of what philosophy is.
None of what you say is relevant. It is philosophy which lays the ground of meaning which dragged empiricism out of the medieval world kicking and screaming into the modern one. It continues to provide a method by which pseudo-science can be challenged to keep science on the right path- a taks which scientists alone seem woefully incapable of taking.

If you had studied a little philosophy you would not be at the mercy of your faulty thinking process.

Wow. Hobbsy, you are on fire this morning

marjoram_blues wrote:Wow. Hobbsy, you are on fire this morning

Thank you.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Empiricism was invented by philosophy.

The best scientists are philosophers too, as at a higher level you have to do more than just gather data and describe what they find. Higher physics is a metaphysical proposition.

Not quite, philosophers doesn't test their results like scientists, thus philosophers only deals with empirical data thus can't have their findings tested, thus it's no different than medieval superstition when their empirical findings wasn't verified.[/quote]

I've already told you that your level of education is not up to the task that you are attempting.

Let's take the first fragment; "Not quite, philosophers doesn't test their results like scientists". I think you meant to say; "philosophers do not test their results like scientists..". Then you continue; " thus philosophers only deals with empirical data". I think you meant to say;"thus philosophers only deal with empirical data".
As well as being ungrammatical, none of this is true. You have a false conclusion signalled by the word "thus". This is what philosophers call a non sequitur. Not only is it a false conclusion but it is wrong. Philosophers do not only deal with empirical data but much more besides. Then you laughingly close you clause with yet another "thus" offering a double whammy in non sequitur terms by ramming home a false tautology (its a circular argument FYI).
And if that was not enough you offer the dumbest conclusion yet because you simply do not have the slightest appreciation of what philosophy is.
None of what you say is relevant. It is philosophy which lays the ground of meaning which dragged empiricism out of the medieval world kicking and screaming into the modern one. It continues to provide a method by which pseudo-science can be challenged to keep science on the right path- a taks which scientists alone seem woefully incapable of taking.

If you had studied a little philosophy you would not be at the mercy of your faulty thinking process.[/quote]You speak of me making circular logic, yet you do NOTHING but making circular logic, you say my conclusions are laughable, yet yours are even more laughable.

You live in a deluded dream making up things grabbed out of thin air.

HexHammer wrote:Not quite, philosophers doesn't test their results like scientists, thus philosophers only deals with empirical data thus can't have their findings tested, thus it's no different than medieval superstition when their empirical findings wasn't verified.

This seems massively confused? If philosophers only deal with empirical data then how can they not have their findings tested and if their empirical findings weren't verified then they must have been tested?

Which bits of medieval superstition do you equate with philosophy now-a-days or even in the past?

HexHammer wrote:]You speak of me making circular logic, yet you do NOTHING but making circular logic, you say my conclusions are laughable, yet yours are even more laughable.

You live in a deluded dream making up things grabbed out of thin air.

Obviously you'd have to say how and why you think my conclusions are "laughable", for me to bother with your response.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Not quite, philosophers doesn't test their results like scientists, thus philosophers only deals with empirical data thus can't have their findings tested, thus it's no different than medieval superstition when their empirical findings wasn't verified.

This seems massively confused? If philosophers only deal with empirical data then how can they not have their findings tested and if their empirical findings weren't verified then they must have been tested?

Which bits of medieval superstition do you equate with philosophy now-a-days or even in the past?

Plz tell me where you test your findings, I've just discussed with you who base ur "solid facts" on this puny article about schools using philosophy, when it in no way exactly states how it enhances the class and school.

Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Not quite, philosophers doesn't test their results like scientists, thus philosophers only deals with empirical data thus can't have their findings tested, thus it's no different than medieval superstition when their empirical findings wasn't verified.

This seems massively confused? If philosophers only deal with empirical data then how can they not have their findings tested and if their empirical findings weren't verified then they must have been tested?

Which bits of medieval superstition do you equate with philosophy now-a-days or even in the past?

I think this is a little too clever for Hex.

HexHammer wrote:Plz tell me where you test your findings, ...

Give me an example of what you mean by the philosophers empirical data?

I've just discussed with you who base ur "solid facts" on this puny article about schools using philosophy, when it in no way exactly states how it enhances the class and school.

It stated exactly how it enhanced the class and school, the students had an access the board improvement in their other studies grades. Not a puny article but an article about a case-based study.

https://educationendowmentfoundation.or ... -children/

Oh and lookee! It was a randomised trial with a comparison group.

Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

Whereas you never give any evidence at all.

HexHammer wrote: Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

It's his arse, Hex, his arse. You're going to offend him if you call it his ass.

Harbal wrote:

HexHammer wrote: Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

It's his arse, Hex, his arse. You're going to offend him if you call it his ass.

Quite right, Yorkie. An ass is something that thou shalt not covet.

Obvious Leo wrote: Quite right, Yorkie. An ass is something that thou shalt not covet.

So was an arse at one time, Leo, but it's quite acceptable these days.

HexHammer wrote: Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

I do not own a donkey, but if I did I'd not but pulling anything from it. I thought pulling off a donkey was your thing - at least that is what your wife told me when I was banging her last week.

Bloody Philosophers!!! What have they ever done for us?

Francis Bacon
In 1614, Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis detailed an ideal society devoted to empirical research. In 1620, with the publication of Novum Organum, Bacon was also doing pioneer work on inductive logic, touting the merits of ‘experience’ in the quest for truth.
Aristotle.
Broke with Plato to suggest we find the universal in the particular and hence offers the inductive method for scientia, coining the phrase Natural Philosophy , without which we would have no modern science. He offered us the basic divisions; physics, biology and geology.
How useless! The bastard!
Descartes, Newton, need we really go on?

It nevertheless remains meaningful to maintain the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. Certainly Descartes, Newton and Bacon established the methodology according to which modern science is conducted but at the same time Leibniz, Spinoza and Kant took pains to point out that no truth statements could be derived from such a methodology.