Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:32 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
My simple answer is that the distinctions just separates philosophy into subsets OF philosophy. Science, for instance, is just a politic of institutional agreement on procedures for determining physical reality using methods that are negotiated among the members who vote on what is or is not valid. Logic is the negotiating rules of the procedure of organizing thought and is the ROOT of what 'philosophy' is about.
For your respective definitions of "philosophy" and "science" sure.
Only, I don't understand why you think Philosophy is not an institution, but Science is.
Science is bound to specific rules that require agreement. That
agreement is what is deemed, "objective". Given logically there can be no actual shared objective
god's-eye perspective, the meaning of objectivity within science has to be the collective subjective agreements about shareable phenomena. That is a 'politic' because it requires a consensus of
official votes of confidence to the processes and rationalization of the conclusions that devolop 'accepted' theories in question. That collective is an 'institute' as it is
authorized through the set of educational and research facilities by their in-house respect and assignment of authorities deemed as 'scientist' or not.
Philosophy, on the other hand, is a general heading that includes any intellectual discourse whether it be between teen age girls discussing who is the ideal boyfriend, or to the scientist disussing what the physical universe could be made up of. The latter is just a 'formalized' philosophy discussing what the physical universe is made up of by seeking patterns in observation.
To me - science is a metaphysic. It's a way of thinking. Nothing to do with politics/institutions.
Metaphysics is what we do when we ask whether the universe begun or not using only words and common understanding anyone can technically participate in. Physics is the literal process of discovering patterns about nature without bias to metaphysical roots of causation to reality itself. There is a crossover of physicists to the metaphysics when one is creating thought experiments like Einstein had done BEFORE one attempt to seek if nature demonstrates a fitness to the proposed theories.
Also to me - Philosophy is a way of thinking. Philosophy is logicism.
Logicism is to logic what scientism is to science.
"Scientism" is a derogatory term invented by those who think that one goes beyond the critical thinking of science and/or gambles in science as valid by faith in authority. I cannot find a common use of 'logicism' outside of unconventional personal definitions. But if you are relating this in kind to 'scientism', then that could be also interpreted potentially as a derogatory abuse or overuse of logic where the user of the term may think it unnecessary. Those are subjective 'feelings' about what people believe.
[Note a Google search for me has "logicism" as a (proprietary) logic simulator for creating languages as Prolog, for instance, may be.]
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
This is a conditional statement that lacks assurances of its terms to be true or false, nor whether the implication as a whole is true or not.
In which system of logic did you interpret that?
I was directly responding to: "
If there is a material, empirical, demonstrable difference in HOW one thinks
then your premise is unfounded."
That's a conditional statement or 'implication'. I'm kind of surprised that you even asked this!??
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
The division of
how one opts to split philosophy up into parts doesn't mean that the whole of the subject only belongs to the political distinction.
Then don't split it into subsets. You yourself see philosophy as a different thing to science. If you didn't - you wouldn't split them.
Philsophy, when dividing it up by traditional organizers of the different kinds, are things like, logic, epistemology, ontology, linguistics, science, social studies, grammar, etc. There are cross-over definitions too that differ depending on who is speaking. "Science" to me is just the general class of philosophies that deal with 'observation'. That the term 'science' derives from an old variant of the word, 'to see' in Greek and Latin, tells you that it focuses on areas that place emphasis on the
senses with or without respect to analysis that deals with 'logic'. "Logic" comes from an even older meaning of "to look", though similar to what we do with the senses, it derives more specifically to the analysis of the "LOGS", a term regarding anything dealing with formal records written in scrolls (as they appear as 'logs') and the particular analysis of the data contained in them, such as taking data of observations to analyze by some organizational method in some medium.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
How does your distinction here relate to my comment?
If "everything is X" - that's just the set of all sets.
If there are sub-sets of X you are still drawing distinctions between.
If I have a class/set of things under the title "philosophy", "science" is just one subset. You can partition the set between "science" and "non-science", but the tendency of many I've come across tend to demarcate logic (and math) as separate areas, especially where they adopt the pariticular philosophy of science that believes all of science is ONLY 'empirical'. But that paradigm is only the "inductive" part of logic. Many also treat math (a subset of logic) as though it were merely a 'tool'. This then means they interpret 'logic' itself as "non-science". This came about due to how you can debate circles around some issues where the 'truth' has no precise foundation, such as in politics and religion.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
No, this topic is itself contradictory as titled per the meaning of "censure" being used where it is confused with "censor(ship)".
They can be seen as one and the same thing.
They can be seen as different things.
If Philosophy is censured it can be censored. Like hate speech.
Sure. That's missing the point though. If you inappropriately give a narrowed meaning to something that is broader in conventional meaning, it is also setting up a sraw-man argument for anything labeled "philosophy" by 'transference, if even remotely true, because it biases others against the broader meaning if it is justly censured for its subset. It also forces the ones who have the broader meaning into silence if they cannot reinvent a new word for the subset, "non-science philosophy". [Note there is some innuendo in this as "non-sense philosophy".] Being forced to separate science from all other philosophy in a strictly exclusive way is likely to miss that science as an 'inductive' study that is less certain than the deductive reasoning that involves math and formal logic as though the more precise measuring tool is more faulty than the imprecise ones.
What distinction between scientific philosophy and non-scientifical philosophy is more blurred than you may realize. Aborting all that is classified as 'non-science' part of philosophy just makes the term 'science' and any association of it AUTHORITIVE of all of philosophy become the old meaning of "philosophy" instead. Since you remove the validity of anything not 'scientific' as noteworthy by such exclusive interpretations, it becomes oddly abusive towards anyone NOT in those institutions that "science" is defined by. Then we reduce science to a 'church', just as the formation of the original Catholic Church did when they demanded their institution authoritative of all that is 'wise'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
The only alternative -- and likely intent of meaning by the OP -- is to the word, "censor", meaning to discriminate by hiding or destroying something expressed by another. This thread then would be speaking about why something called, "philosophy", by the author is interpreted as something distinctly a separate part of itself, a 'contradiction' if one knows that the meaning of the word is any activity open to discussion intellectually.
You are arguing semantics, not testable consequences.
Q.E.D different ways of thinking.
It's an important point given that I personally have witnessed of real issues with those who bully and troll on supposed "science" forums that demand people default a 'faith' in the Standard Model or risk censure AND censor. I dare anyone to simply use the title of a thread like, "Einstein was Wrong" and expect it not to be censored out regardless of its actual content. I take very strong concern about HOW one CENSORS. Censure (as mere rebuke) is better but can also be abused by trolling as a form of indirect 'censor' as it prevents those speaking by heckling them.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
Science is a philosophical subset of philosophy; Philosophy is not a subset of science. Censoring "philosophy" is to censor science, logic, or any means to discuss or debate issues of intellectual matters.
I maintain that it's the other way around. Assume ceteris paribus between science and philosophy.
If the only difference between the two disciplines is that scientists come to a consensus and Philosophers don't, that's a material difference.
A discipline that has never arrived at consensus is harmful to human relations.[/quote]
That's just plain false. Is TRUTH about reality dependent upon a democratic vote? The practical distinction is politics and power. The tendency for abuse runs in cycles whereby some original system of thought (philosophy) begins with sincerity but then becomes laden in bureacracy, religion, and abuse at a later period. Take 'science' as originally something anyone was encouraged to partipate in. Take one sub-issue that coincides with this factor, like how one can use chemistry to make illegal drugs. Then you get the law that blocks free access to education in chemistry and even the simplest of professional equipment that would be required for one to freely experiment outside of institutions. You can't and so are forced to go THROUGH those institutes in order to be even POTENTIALLY able to experiment. But this costs money and time and a willingness to submit to a formal authoritative process even to merely do what used to be as simple as going to your pharmacist within a few hours to do. This eventual barrier becomes obsolete for those who cannot afford or be permitted to participate in the very original genesis of the scientific philosophy it began with.
Consensus is politics because we are required to hand the power over to an authoritative class of people, similar to the "college voting" system of the United States Presidential election in which the majority vote by the people don't count, but the college of representive 'wise' people who used to be understood as qualified are no longer able to determine IF they are wiser to take on the veto.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
You're proving your lack of logical skill to not notice you made a critical logical fallacy of bias here.
I have logical skills that far exceed your own, thank you very much
You made a critical error regarding a very fundamental concept that I am shocked about regarding conditionals. Why do you conveniently leave the statement you said to which I was responding to out of the quote if not for being deceptive?
I am also confident in my own capability and don't use deceptive tactics to hide whatever flaws I have. Own your error. Don't try to turn the onus on me!
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
If philosophy is distinct from science, logic, or some other part of it by an obsolete interpretation you hold in your head, you just REDEFINED what it means to not BE 'philosophy' as understood by most practicing it and using the term only.
I don't think in definitions or categories. It seems that you do though....
Another odd thing to say
?? What texts do you learn from?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:36 pm
This is a transference of the symbol, "philosophy" to a non-representative definition of the subject.
If everything is philosophy then science is philosophy.
if everything is science then philosophy is science.
Is just semantics.
Equivocation. I already pointed this error out above. If you dictate that the whole of philosophy should ONLY be 'science', this is your biased baggage to deal with, not mine. Philosophy is the generic class of all intellectual pursuits collectively. Science is a subset and incomplete without its complement.
