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.
I don't want to be too critical as there's a lot of stuff which ordinary bods can't understand but we're going to have to if we are not going to be overwhelmed by the ones who peddle simple 'Goddunnit' or alien scientists designed DNA.
Thus the bods doing the abstruse stuff especially all in mathematics may have to be able to get the case over to the voting public.
This was done surprisingly well in the advanced cosmology area and evolution is coming on, too.
Philosophy (inasmuch as it has anything useful to contribute apart from the rules of logic) might do the same.
It does at present give the impression that it is either impossible to express ideas other than in a curious Eurish comprehensible only to others who know the language or that it rather pleases them to be incomprehensible to the common herd.
WITHIN what you want to call analytic philosophy there is no cohesive consensus and considerable debate and consternation about the meaning of "analytic" .
Firstly, "analytic philosophy" is not a phrase I just pulled out of a hat, it refers to a branch of philosophy:
Secondly, your assertion is not true. There is considerable consensus in analytic philosophy in terms of the underlying methodology and basic direction.
As I said before, your understanding of philosophy is not academic, its colloquial.
It isn't helped by your muddying (use.id) of the issue with jargon about eastern/western philosophy. I only know two kinds of philosophy, valid and invalid, logically sound and not.
I find this comment absurd, do you also have problems with scientific jargon? No, I doubt it, so why in the case of philosophy? Your problem here is that you refuse to think of philosophy as an academic discipline, instead you only care about the plebeian senses of the word.
Anyhow, if you actually want to learn about philosophy let me know, until then I'm sure you'll continue to think you know about it despite ever actually studying it.
Secondly, your assertion is not true. There is considerable consensus in analytic philosophy in terms of the underlying methodology and basic direction.
As I said before, your understanding of philosophy is not academic, its colloquial.
You can have absolutely no understanding of physics, but you can use a cellphone or watch TV. You can be unable to add 2+2, but you can use a bridge or live in a building.
And you can have absolutely no understanding of logic, yet use a computer. Philosophy has end products as well, they just usually aren't the sort that you can directly sell to the public, instead they are brought to a 3rd party (science, computer science, mathematics, etc).
Science itself is an end product of philosophy, science was developed from philosophic analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
Philosophy is supposed to help us understand what we are and how we fit into the grand scheme of things, but it doesn't do that for the vast majority of humanity.
This isn't really what philosophy is suppose to do, that is just the popular conception of what people think philosophy does. Analytic philosophy, which is almost exclusively taught in US universities, doesn't care about "how we fit into the grand scheme of things". Most analytic philosophers are working on issues that are connected to science or mathematics in some way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
If philosophy was more up to date, widespread, and comprehendable we'd of put silly things like that behind us long ago.
You can apply this same reasoning to science, after all isn't the age of the earth a scientific matter? Why do most people still think evolution is false? Science must not be up to date, widespread, comprehensible, etc.
Of course like philosophy, science is up to date, its your reasoning that is bad. Philosophy is a rigorous academic discipline, its beyond the reach of your average joe. Again, the problem is compounded by the fact that US public schools teach zero about philosophy and the general history of Western thought.
And you can have absolutely no understanding of logic, yet use a computer. Philosophy has end products as well, they just usually aren't the sort that you can directly sell to the public, instead they are brought to a 3rd party (science, computer science, mathematics, etc).
Science itself is an end product of philosophy, science was developed from philosophic analysis.
This isn't really what philosophy is suppose to do, that is just the popular conception of what people think philosophy does. Analytic philosophy, which is almost exclusively taught in US universities, doesn't care about "how we fit into the grand scheme of things". Most analytic philosophers are working on issues that are connected to science or mathematics in some way or another.
You can apply this same reasoning to science, after all isn't the age of the earth a scientific matter? Why do most people still think evolution is false? Science must not be up to date, widespread, comprehensible, etc.
Of course like philosophy, science is up to date, its your reasoning that is bad. Philosophy is a rigorous academic discipline, its beyond the reach of your average joe. Again, the problem is compounded by the fact that US public schools teach zero about philosophy and the general history of Western thought.
But do you really think philosophy should be "beyond the reach of the average joe?" Is it truly impossible to "dumb down" the subject? If you think no, you might want to consider the posiblity you have fallen into that elitist trap I griped about earlier.
You are absolutely right about lack of exposure in education being the them main problem. But the Man wants reliable workers, not independent thinkers, so it's unlikely we'll see Philosophy as a serious subject in public school.
Therefore, we have only two reasonable options here. Either the field of Philosophy retreats into elitist obscurity or it reinvents itself to become more available and practical for the modern world. Which way should it go?
But do you really think philosophy should be "beyond the reach of the average joe?" Is it truly impossible to "dumb down" the subject?
No, I don't think it "should" be beyond the reach of the average joe, but rather the field has become so complex (like all other academic fields) that it takes years to even learn the fundamentals and hence beyond the reach of the average joe.
And no, its not impossible to "dumb down" philosophy, you can "dumb down" philosophy just like you can "dumb down" science. There are many books that do this, "Philosophy for dummies", etc.
Anyhow, I don't think most researchers/academics are effective at communicating to the "average joe" regardless of the field. It takes a special sort of person to do this effectively. I don't see why you are trying to isolate philosophy in terms of what you are calling an "elitist trap", work in any field is pretty much produced for people in that field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
Either the field of Philosophy retreats into elitist obscurity or it reinvents itself to become more available and practical for the modern world. Which way should it go?
Philosophy is already available and practical for the modern world, just not in the way you want it to be. You'll find references to major philosophic works throughout the sciences and you'll find philosophers working on the cutting edge of human edge today.
You'll find references to major philosophic works throughout the sciences and you'll find philosophers working on the cutting edge of human edge today.
Really? I made it through many years of college taking way too many science and engineering courses and only saw references to philosophy in a dedicated humanities elective - and there, the "philosophical" understanding of even basic science was pretty poor.
I know the mythology is that philosophy is the guiding the overall path of science, but from what I've actually experienced this isn't true. Scientists are pretty good at their jobs, and don't need outsiders with little to no experience in the field telling them what they're doing wrong. Enough of their colleagues do that for them.
Sure, there's a whole philosophy of science field but that seems to be post hoc descriptions of what scientists did 50 years ago, not cutting edge research underpinning the entirety of science. As an analogy, my garbage man has a metaphysical framework guiding his life, but that doesn't mean that he's doing philosophy when he picks up my trash. Likewise, scientists are doing science when they do science - they just don't worry about what philosophers think about them.
That doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't have a place in areas science can't investigate - ethics comes to mind - but I just don't see it having the impact claimed in the hard sciences. There may be lots of cases where philosophers co-opt science for their work but I just don't see the opposite happening in practice.
I find this comment absurd, do you also have problems with scientific jargon? No, I doubt it, so why in the case of philosophy? Your problem here is that you refuse to think of philosophy as an academic discipline, instead you only care about the plebeian senses of the word.
I do indeed, as do many other bods in the street who want to understand. However, science actually does pretty well in getting over the abstruse stuff about black holes, quantum and indeterminacy in terms which we can get a grip on. Why does philosophy not do the same?
It does not assure me that there is not simply a lot of bamboozlement with jargon going on when two erudite philosophers such as yourself and Mystic tell the others they don't know what they are talking about.
Quote:
Anyhow, if you actually want to learn about philosophy let me know, until then I'm sure you'll continue to think you know about it despite ever actually studying it.
In fact I have other areas of interest and I don't claim to know about philosophy. That's why I put points and look for clarification, perhaps like a layman turning up here asking about evlolution or Bible history. That is explained pretty clearly. But philosophy seems to prefer to just say 'you don't know the jargon so I'm right and you're wrong'.
It doesn't matter. I know from science at least that it's hypothesis first and validation second and I don't mind whether you want to say philosophy has any part in that or not.
Really? I made it through many years of college taking way too many science and engineering courses and only saw references to philosophy in a dedicated humanities elective - and there, the "philosophical" understanding of even basic science was pretty poor.
Yes, really. My comment was about scientific research, not scientific textbooks, though philosophers are mentioned in them as well. The stuff they put into undergrad textbooks is established science, not cutting edge science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
I know the mythology is that philosophy is the guiding the overall path of science, but from what I've actually experienced this isn't true.
I'm not sure what mythology you're talking about, philosophy does not "guide" science. Philosophy and science have a tight relationship, they both inform each other. Also, one has to recognize that sitting in a philosophy department isn't a requirement to do philosophy, many scientists perform philosophic analyzes. At times you'll also find Philosophers providing what is more or less scientific methodology, for example look at the work of:
Sure, there's a whole philosophy of science field but that seems to be post hoc descriptions of what scientists did 50 years ago, not cutting edge research underpinning the entirety of science.
Philosophy of science is concerned with science as a whole and you're right most scientists really don't think about what they are doing, that doesn't mean that thinking about science in general isn't important.
Philosophy of science isn't where you're going to see philosophers interacting actively with scientists on research though, you have to look at particular fields for that. For example, the philosophy of mind, philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, etc.
Here is Einstein on the Philosophy of science:
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth"
Philosophy is most active in new science and revolutionary periods in science, that is because it is during these times that science is being reworked conceptually and one has to go back "to your roots" which means philosophy.
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.
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.
