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 06-06-2016, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,110,351 times
Reputation: 3036

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
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.
That's a good way of putting it.

I would disagree however a bit about the suppression of thought in philosophy. I think in one sense academic philosophy as suffered recently from a lack of focus. That, and by its nature, philosophy is just as rigorous as a community as science, though its strides are more nuanced and "small" by comparison.


Philosophy has aided in the latest quantum discussions and other things in science; like neuroscience and AI. And it has also been playing a role in dissecting our thoughts and processes in our recent financial and social crises.

And that's where and when Philosophy shines, in the crossroads of our practical lives.

This is a good list of current problems people are asking in the realm of Philosophy.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-c...ern-philosophy

But I agree.

Science can not quantify things like comedy, drama or even art. And those things produce knowledge as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2016, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,680,340 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
That's a good way of putting it.

I would disagree however a bit about the suppression of thought in philosophy. I think in one sense academic philosophy as suffered recently from a lack of focus. That, and by its nature, philosophy is just as rigorous as a community as science, though its strides are more nuanced and "small" by comparison.


Philosophy has aided in the latest quantum discussions and other things in science; like neuroscience and AI. And it has also been playing a role in dissecting our thoughts and processes in our recent financial and social crises.

And that's where and when Philosophy shines, in the crossroads of our practical lives.

This is a good list of current problems people are asking in the realm of Philosophy.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-c...ern-philosophy

But I agree.

Science can not quantify things like comedy, drama or even art. And those things produce knowledge as well.
The issue with academic philosophy is what you indirectly alluded to, that is it is nowadays it is trying too hard to to be a science. There are two reasons for this:

A) Academia is frightened by the science thought police who are ubiquitous.

2) Science = funding

With that at said, one of the great philosophers of the early 20th century, Henri Bergson, has had a very profound effect on my knowledge and the way I perceive life. Equally, some scientists/philosophers such as Bohm and DeBroglie have had similar impact on my life because of the way the creatively derived knowledge and informed others via their essays. Bohm in particular wrote a masterful essay on creative thought.

Knowledge is what one forms within oneself so that it becomes part of myself. I derive equally from all fields that I have studied. All are equal. There is no king of the mountain. It is what one does with the events one has in one's own life. All of the issues on your list are part of my life's study.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,829,460 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
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.
I suppose you need to understand that slavery was based on the fact that slaves were seen less then human. You can thank Charles Darwin for bringing light to the fact that African slaves were not humans.

Throughout history slaves were seen less then human.

Science explains why some humans are empathetic and some are not. Science is not the morality police, however it can explain why humans are they are.

You are confusing knowledge with morality.

If Philosophy generates knowledge then it should be easy to list examples of the knowledge that Philosophy has given us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,829,460 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
This is exactly my point. Science gives us knowledge, not Philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
I will repeat. Once upon a time Philosophy and Science were married. Then they split up and Philosophy remained Philosophy and Science became Natural Science. It was not solely the business of Philosophy to provide the framework. It was the combination of both the ancient philosophers and scientists who developed the framework. Many philosophers centuries ago were also scientists.

Wiki does a good job in explaining the History of the Scientific Method.
Quote:
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a debate over realism vs. antirealism was central to discussions of scientific method as powerful scientific theories extended beyond the realm of the observable, while in the mid-20th century some prominent philosophers argued against any universal rules of science at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note this Scientific Method
I hold both BS and MS degrees. I am well aware of what the Scientific Method is as well as the history of it's development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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?
Disagree. See above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,829,460 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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.
Nothing I posted was wrong. I challenge you to list knowledge given to us by Philosophy about how the Universe works, how we came into existence, how evolution works..etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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.
There is no difficultly on my part in understanding what knowledge is. It's clear to me that you are confused in knowing that meta-knowledge is a fundamental conceptual instrument used in such research and scientific domains, such as, knowledge engineering, knowledge management, and others dealing with study and operations on knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Science cannot currently and most likely will not ever solve.
I would be willing to bet Science will figure it out and lend much more to it's understanding then Philosophy could ever do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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.
LOL! In your dreams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Science in its purest forms makes no judgments. It just shows what is. Hence one of the limitations of the moral aspects of science.
That's right, Scientists are not afforded the luxury of a "belief" system, since what we believe does not matter. The same standard should hold true for every human, regardless of their scientific background. Probability is not our lack of understanding, it's simply how the Universe works. The Universe does not care if we don't like how it works, because it does not fit into our "beliefs".
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Doing Philosophy is better equipped to make sense of those moral judgments.
How is moral knowledge possible? This question is central in moral epistemology and marks a cluster of problems. The most important are the following...
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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.
Science does not make or support such claims, only people who don't understand Science would make such claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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.
Philosophy does not bridge any gaps in science. Science does not say we are just biology. Where do you get such nonsense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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.
Again be my guest and list all useful knoweldge that Philosophy has contributed to us in the 20th and 21 Centuries. I can effortlessly make a list for you about all of the Scientific Discoveries and Knowledge obtained via Science in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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 chide it for obvious reasons. When they are doing any type of experiment, it's not based on Philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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.
Total nonsense again. They don't know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy and they are most certainly thinking about it. No dismissal there. Scientists don't invoke god or any other silly nonsense when they are at the limits of their understanding. They continue going back to the drawing board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
There being different forms of knowledge is my argument.
It's not my argument. Mine is that Philosophy does not generate knowledge, Science generates it. Philosophy does not generate knowledge, it only makes arguments from already existing knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
In the end science and philosophy work hand in hand.
No they don't. They split up long ago and Philosophy remained Philosophy and Science became Natural Science. Philosophy has nothing to do with the knowledge that Science generates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
There is no question that science comes up with more answers about the external world...and it should; that is its aim.
When you make claims such as this it tells me that you do not understand what Science is about. There are branches of Science that deal with all the things that we need to understand with respect to how the Universe works and how life here on Earth works.

Despite the fact that they are subject to change, scientific ideas are reliable. The ideas that have gained scientific acceptance have done so because they are supported by many lines of evidence. These scientific explanations continually generate expectations that hold true, allowing us to figure out how entities in the natural world are likely to behave (e.g., how likely it is that a child will inherit a particular genetic disease) and how we can harness that understanding to solve problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
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.
Nope, 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, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,829,460 times
Reputation: 7067
I had to correct my second sentence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I suppose you need to understand that slavery was based on the fact that slaves were seen less then human. You can thank Charles Darwin for bringing light to the fact that it was wrong to view African slaves as not being human.

Throughout history slaves were seen less then human.

Science explains why some humans are empathetic and some are not. Science is not the morality police, however it can explain why humans are the way they are.

You are confusing knowledge with morality.

If Philosophy generates knowledge then it should be easy to list examples of the knowledge that Philosophy has given us.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-06-2016 at 05:29 PM.. Reason: Correcting Typos!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,680,340 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I suppose you need to understand that slavery was based on the fact that slaves were seen less then human. You can thank Charles Darwin for bringing light to the fact that African slaves were not humans.

Throughout history slaves were seen less then human.

Science explains why some humans are empathetic and some are not. Science is not the morality police, however it can explain why humans are they are.

You are confusing knowledge with morality.

If Philosophy generates knowledge then it should be easy to list examples of the knowledge that Philosophy has given us.
There are always excuses for slave labor and there are always apologists for those who are benefiting from slave future. It is a simple matter of observing human nature. Darwin is the excuse neatly supplied by Darwin. Hence it is embraced for the excuses it provides. The White Western World loved it. It was god sent.

Last edited by richrf; 06-06-2016 at 06:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,829,460 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
There are always excuses for slave labor and there are always apologists for those who are benefiting from slave future.
One of the biggest justification used back in the slave trade days is that African slaves were savages. They argued that African societies and cultures were unskilled, uneducated and savage and thus benefited from being removed from their homeland and used as slaves.

Nazi Germany used this approach to indoctrinate it's population against Jews. They also taught that Jews were less than human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Darwin is the excuse neatly supplied by Darwin.
Good for Darwin. At least he knew which way was up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Hence it is embraced for the excuses it provides.
Knowing that Africans are just as human as anyone else is not an excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
The White Western World loved it. It was god sent.
No they did not love it. I would not call 245 years of slavery existing in the US before the Emancipation Proclamation was ordered as a god send. Even then slavery continued just as it does today. If this is a god send in your opinion, then you worship a very evil god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,680,340 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
One of the biggest justification used back in the slave trade days is that African slaves were savages. They argued that African societies and cultures were unskilled, uneducated and savage and thus benefited from being removed from their homeland and used as slaves.

Nazi Germany used this approach to indoctrinate it's population against Jews. They also taught that Jews were less than human.
Good for Darwin. At least he knew which way was up.
Knowing that Africans are just as human as anyone else is not an excuse.
No they did not and I would not call 245 years of slavery existing before the Emancipation Proclamation was ordered. Even then slavery continued just as it does today. If this is a god send in your opinion then you worship a very evil god.
Yep, and you'll find plenty of scientists willing to support every racist view that money could buy. Read about Nazi scientists. They were darn good specimens of their profession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2016, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,829,460 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Yep, and you'll find plenty of scientists willing to support every racist view that money could buy. Read about Nazi scientists. They were darn good specimens of their profession.
Like you said, it's a simple matter of observing human nature. Scientists are human as well.

What humans do with scientific knowledge is not a reflection on Science, but instead a reflection on the human who is using it to do evil.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-06-2016 at 07:36 PM..
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.

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