U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2016, 01:50 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,038 posts, read 4,773,027 times
Reputation: 7060

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
It's unfortunate that science and philosophy would be pitted against each other.

People vastly undervalue philosophy as it is more "behind the scenes" than science. But both share a lot of common ground. Yes it tends to be more theoretical, but it is also important in bridging the meta-questions of knowledge, morality, and metaphysics. Philosophy gives us logical knowledge and science gives us knowledge about the extended world. One is entirely empirical and the other isn't.
Philosophy does not generate knowledge. Science generates knowledge.

Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making Philosophy obsolete.

At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knoweldge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.

The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.

The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day they don't generate knowledge. In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.

Of course Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-01-2016, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,082,927 times
Reputation: 3033
You're wrong, but that's fine. Philosophers absolutely create knowledge. You may not find it important, but it's knowledge about the world nonetheless.

BTW I'm glad science has figured out the problem of consciousness, and all of our moral issues among other things. At it's end science would say we all all just a bunch of neurons firing, that's it. You've been reduced to biology. There's your big answer; your existence.

Positivism has been long out of fashion for a while, but go ahead and marginalize Philosophy some more.

Knowledge is knowledge, meta or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2016, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,661,061 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by RajputMaster24 View Post
Dear friends, is it true that philosophy and science are the only two methods of attaining knowledge?

Also, what has produced more knowledge so far--philosophy or science?
People gain knowledge all the time but experiencing life. Philosophy and science are borne out of academia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,038 posts, read 4,773,027 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
You're wrong, but that's fine.
I would be better able to respond if you pointed out what I am wrong about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Philosophers absolutely create knowledge. You may not find it important, but it's knowledge about the world nonetheless.
Philosophy does not produce knowledge; that is the job of science. Philosophy examines ways knowledge is claimed to be produced, and the implications of what that knowledge might be for other views we hold.

For example, we do not show that free will exists or not. If there is a neurological cause of all our actions, then that is the scientific result, and there’s an end to it, at least, until some other science is done that refutes or refines that claim.

What the philosopher does with this is try to figure out what, of our prior views on free will, must be abandoned in the light of these results, and what can be retained or revised. It might turn out that, for example, freedom of the will is simply a legal concept, and so we do not need to base it upon causal indeterminacy. That is not knowledge. That is an argument from knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
BTW I'm glad science has figured out the problem of consciousness, and all of our moral issues among other things.
What "problem" has science figured out with respect to consciousness?

Yes, be thankful for the scientific contributions to morality.

Morality is impossible without Science. If you don’t know the consequences of your actions…then you can’t even decide what is right or what is wrong. We have seen morality change…for example with slavery. It was seen as being ok since they were viewed as inferior and not human. This is how the Nazi’s indoctrinated Germans against the Jews.

Science has told us that that’s wrong. You might believe, as all religions taught, that women are chattel.

Science has told us that this is wrong. You might believe that homosexuality is evil…but science has told us that a mammalian species have naturally occurring homosexuals.

To have morality without science is empty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
At it's end science would say we all all just a bunch of neurons firing, that's it. You've been reduced to biology. There's your big answer; your existence.
Odd in that I have never been taught, or have read anywhere, that science has reduced our existence down to "just a bunch of neurons firing" or to biology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Positivism has been long out of fashion for a while, but go ahead and marginalize Philosophy some more.
Once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy.

At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since. This fact has nothing to do with Positivism and all to do with Science becoming an evolving body of knowledge and discovery, essentially leaving Philosophy in the dust.
Quote:
While philosophical thought pertaining to science dates back at least to the time of Aristotle, philosophy of science emerged as a distinct discipline only in the middle of the 20th century in the wake of the logical positivism movement, which aimed to formulate criteria for ensuring all philosophical statements' meaningfulness and objectively assessing them.
Philosophy of Science
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Knowledge is knowledge, meta or not.
There being “different ways of knowledge” is not the point I am making here.

Philosophy does not generate knowledge, it only makes arguments from already existing knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 02:13 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,568,284 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Philosophy does not generate knowledge. Science generates knowledge.

Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making Philosophy obsolete.

At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knoweldge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.

The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.

The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day they don't generate knowledge. In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.

Of course Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.
I do not agree with the above.

Science produced knowledge that is conditioned by its Framework and Scientific Method. Science do not produce whatever knowledge-in-itself. Whatever knowledge is produced by Science, such knowledge is always qualified to its framework and thus cannot be absolute but it is nevertheless very objective [verifiable, testable and repeatable].
This principle applies to all other sources of knowledge which are conditioned by their respective framework.

Philosophy in the strictest sense [not conventional] override Science and knowledge from all other sources.
This is why we have philosophy of X [where X can be anything].
In Science, the process of establishment of a Scientific Framework and Scientific Method that is efficient is not a scientific exercise but rather a philosophical one on a collective basis.

Here is what philosophy proper is;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
The fact that philosophy do not provide definite answers is a sort of "definite answer" [99.99%] of high level knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 03:25 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,038 posts, read 4,773,027 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I do not agree with the above.
Can you provide any examples of how Philosophy has given us knowledge on how the Universe works? Knowledge to understand our existence in the Cosmos? Knowledge to understand of how we came into existence?

Also can you flesh out this comment...it does not make sense to me. It seems to be in agreement with what I am saying...that Philosophy does not generate knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The fact that philosophy do not provide definite answers is a sort of "definite answer" [99.99%] of high level knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 03:51 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,568,284 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Can you provide any examples of how Philosophy has given us knowledge on how the Universe works? Knowledge to understand our existence in the Cosmos? Knowledge to understand of how we came into existence?

Also can you flesh out this comment...it does not make sense to me. It seems to be in agreement with what I am saying...that Philosophy does not generate knowledge.
If you read my post again you will note I did not say philosophy-proper provide the various kinds of knowledge in general be it Science and other.

What I implied was philosophy proper provide meta-knowledge, i.e.
the knowledge of how to establish a framework for Science and other sources of knowledge.
It is not the business of Science to establish it own framework, it is the business of philosophy to provide the necessary knowledge to built a Scientific Framework for Science to operate.

Note this Scientific Method;


My point is the establishment of such a Framework and process to guide Scientific work is not a scientific process but rather a philosophical process based on philosophical knowledge.
Agree or disagree?

The other is, that philosophy's understanding itself as not providing definite answer is itself knowledge.
Note the Russell's quote above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 04:49 AM
Status: "Pondering the difference between America and AmeriKKKa" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
3,958 posts, read 2,088,228 times
Reputation: 3707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Morality is impossible without Science. If you don’t know the consequences of your actions…then you can’t even decide what is right or what is wrong. We have seen morality change…for example with slavery. It was seen as being ok since they were viewed as inferior and not human. This is how the Nazi’s indoctrinated Germans against the Jews.
That still doesn't address why slavery was/is wrong. Same for every other act widely despised by society. Why should I care if I see someone, even a stranger I perceive of equal "worth" as me (in whatever sense) was, is, or will be beaten with a blunt object and left in pain and suffering? I am not affected by that person's beating, after all. It won't hurt my physical quality of life (money, property, civil liberties, etc). Sure, science can tell us that it's due to my mirror neurons that let me have a non-trivial hint at what another feels -- but it cannot tell me why I should feel sympathy for such a person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,082,927 times
Reputation: 3033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I would be better able to respond if you pointed out what I am wrong about.
Everything stated wrong because Philosophy does produce knowledge. As per the links I posted. You may place more value on certain "types" of knowledge, but it doesn't mean the logical knowledge Philosophy still produces isn't knowledge.


Quote:
Philosophy does not produce knowledge; that is the job of science. Philosophy examines ways knowledge is claimed to be produced, and the implications of what that knowledge might be for other views we hold.
Yes it does. You're having a difficult time understanding what knowledge is. I have knowledge, gained from only Philosophical rigor that is different yet important in understanding human thought. Meta-knowledge is still knowledge.

Quote:
For example, we do not show that free will exists or not. If there is a neurological cause of all our actions, then that is the scientific result, and there’s an end to it, at least, until some other science is done that refutes or refines that claim.

What the philosopher does with this is try to figure out what, of our prior views on free will, must be abandoned in the light of these results, and what can be retained or revised. It might turn out that, for example, freedom of the will is simply a legal concept, and so we do not need to base it upon causal indeterminacy. That is not knowledge. That is an argument from knowledge.
And this would be an example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_reductionism

Science in this case merely aides logical discussions on philosophical free will. It does not dictate it or even guide them.

Sure there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

But this still does not answer or really address questions of Determinism.

Quote:
What "problem" has science figured out with respect to consciousness?
I was being facetious. Science cannot currently and most likely will not ever solve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_p..._consciousness

At the very worst, I would argue that Science and Philosophy are still working in tandem to solve even empirical problems and create the same knowledge in the end.

Quote:
Yes, be thankful for the scientific contributions to morality.

Morality is impossible without Science. If you don’t know the consequences of your actions…then you can’t even decide what is right or what is wrong. We have seen morality change…for example with slavery. It was seen as being ok since they were viewed as inferior and not human. This is how the Nazi’s indoctrinated Germans against the Jews.

Science has told us that that’s wrong. You might believe, as all religions taught, that women are chattel.

Science has told us that this is wrong. You might believe that homosexuality is evil…but science has told us that a mammalian species have naturally occurring homosexuals.

To have morality without science is empty.
Science in its purest forms makes no judgments. It just shows what is. Hence one of the limitations of the moral aspects of science. Doing Philosophy is better equipped to make sense of those moral judgments.


Quote:
Odd in that I have never been taught, or have read anywhere, that science has reduced our existence down to "just a bunch of neurons firing" or to biology.
Once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy.
But science by itself is reductionist. Science alone would say our lives are living breathing beings that procreate. That our consciousness is just neurons firing away. There may be smaller and smaller particles and systems in place of which we do not know; but that's that.

But by extension, philosophy bridges those gaps and either by itself or in conjunction with science to create a deeper knowledge of the world and to make an even greater sense of things like humanity, without saying we are just biology.

Quote:
At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since. This fact has nothing to do with Positivism and all to do with Science becoming an evolving body of knowledge and discovery, essentially leaving Philosophy in the dust.
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy is only marginalized by people who don't truly understand the importance of philosophy and the role that it still currently plays in the scientific process as well as outside of it.

Hence when Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson chide and deride the values and current importance of philosophy it pains me because in part, when they are doing thought experiments, they are doing philosophy sadly without realizing it.

They and others dismiss thought for what they can see. They are empirical. And that is fine for learning more about the extended world, but there's also more to the world than that.


Quote:
There being “different ways of knowledge” is not the point I am making here.

Philosophy does not generate knowledge, it only makes arguments from already existing knowledge.
There being different forms of knowledge is my argument.

And again my argument is philosophy both works with science and alone to create both its own knowledge and meta-knowledge. Just because philosophy builds on itself (much like the majority of science), doesn't make it's knowledge any less.

In the end science and philosophy work hand in hand. There is no question that science comes up with more answers about the external world...and it should; that is its aim. However, philosophy isn't or shouldn't be marginalized because it does create knowledge, in the forms of building upon itself and meta-knowledge of subjects like science, art, humanity and morality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,661,061 times
Reputation: 2181
Science documents approximate measurements of senses and then reaches a consenus among its members which is reported. To what extent anyone believes any of these consensus reports and the value of the report is up to each person to decide. Suffice to say that everything that scientific has ever come up with has been eventually overturned by another consensus. Whether or not any of this is knowledge depends upon one's definition of knowledge. But it's information.

For the most part, modern academic philosophy is a robotic regurgitation of some ancient thought that is almost always mistranslated and misinterpreted. It lends itself to heated discussions which offers up an interesting hobby especially for those who get paid for it, but the suppression of any real creative thought within philosophical academic circles makes it quite resilient to new knowledge. Anyone presenting new ideas is pretty much quickly ostracized for academic fear of ruining the curriculum. As with science, it provides some information depending upon how much you trust the source.

If one wants new knowledge, any field can deliver it whether it be history, art, music, dance, sports, health, or whatever. It is acquired by observation, analysis, creative thinking, and a self initiated push forward to develop new ideas that can be assimilated into one's own memory. Knowledge is king and it is up oneself to find it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:04 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top