Philosophy Of Science

[DBT]

I think we can do without the AI overviews, but yes, there is a philosophy of religion, And not all that practice it are theists, though some are. The theist Alvin Plantinga prominently comes to mind.

Rather than source, I see it as a matter of considering the merit of the information content. AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers. If something is wrong, that can be addressed regardless of its source.

My point was that, unlike science, philosophy, dealing in subjects such as religion, ideology, is not necessarily based on objective evidence....at which point the two diverge.

 

[Politesse]

Does philosophy encompass theology? As with the 'philosophy of science," do we have the philosophy of theology?

"Theology is the study of religious doctrines, while philosophy uses reason to analyze and develop ideas, including those of religion. Philosophical theology integrates these fields by applying philosophical methods to theological concept." - AI overview

"Philosophy" is the Western academy drawing a protective coccoon around the notion that it is wholly autonomous from the church, with recourse to philosophers too ancient for their religious sensibilities to be well-known or particularly relateable to the modern student. But Plato was no atheist...

 

[bilby]

I think we can do without the AI overviews, ...

Rather than source, I see it as a matter of considering the merit of the information content. AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers. If something is wrong, that can be addressed regardless of its source.

Not so. AI overviews do not and cannot explain their reasoning. A human writer can open an account here and can be asked to do so; Even a deceased source was usually challenged in their own lifetime, and has a body of work that can be examined for clarification.

AI is no better than "I have an unnamed mate who has spent a lot of time on the Internet, and here is his opinion..."

If your mate won't or can't sign up to this board, and won't or can't be named, and identified with a history of statements, claims, reasoning, and academic or professional qualifications, then we don't gain anything from their input - whether they are a human or an AI.

As you say: "AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers". So we need to be able to at the very least ask questions of any source to determine how much of their stuff is garbage.

AI does not allow that, so it is just worthless noise.

 

[No Robots]

As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy.--Marx

The denigration of philosophy is reactionary ideology. The intent is to strip people of their only effective weapon against the existing order.

Scientists are slaves in the service of the existing order.

As capitalism has developed, mechanical materialism – described variously more recently as ‘scientism’, ‘positivism’, ‘hard-nosed objectivity’ – has become the dominant ideology. Science as ideology has extended the reductionist methods of natural science over the human sciences as well, turning human subjects into objects (that is, making the potentially active, passive) – at its logical extreme reducing human beings to ‘nothing but’ the abstract categories of biological and chemical laws. All knowledge except that which is legitimised by this mechanical materialism is denied. The consequence, as the ‘scientists’ are the producers of mechanical materialism, is that science becomes an ideology and scientists the ideologists. How does this work? As the material world controls the limits of an interpretation of the scientist in his own work, the answer lies, as Marx and Engels saw, outside the precise research area, where the scientist, freed from such constraints, talks (typically in the name of science) pure ideology. In the name of science, invoking neutrality, technique and expertise, the scientist supports the ruling strata.--Steven Rose. "The Problematic Inheritance: Marx and Engels on the Natural Sciences." Chapter 1 of The Political Economy of Science: Ideology of / in the Natural Sciences, p. 9.

 

[DBT]

I think we can do without the AI overviews, ...

Rather than source, I see it as a matter of considering the merit of the information content. AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers. If something is wrong, that can be addressed regardless of its source.

Not so. AI overviews do not and cannot explain their reasoning. A human writer can open an account here and can be asked to do so; Even a deceased source was usually challenged in their own lifetime, and has a body of work that can be examined for clarification.

AI is no better than "I have an unnamed mate who has spent a lot of time on the Internet, and here is his opinion..."

If your mate won't or can't sign up to this board, and won't or can't be named, and identified with a history of statements, claims, reasoning, and academic or professional qualifications, then we don't gain anything from their input - whether they are a human or an AI.

As you say: "AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers". So we need to be able to at the very least ask questions of any source to determine how much of their stuff is garbage.

AI does not allow that, so it is just worthless noise.

AI Overview just gives a summary based on whatever information is available.

It may be a reasonable summary or it may wrong. If it is wrong, whatever is wrong may be addressed.

If I thought the information was largely wrong, I would not quote it.

I quote it because sometimes its convenient, time constraints, etc. No big deal.

 

[DBT]

As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy.--Marx

The denigration of philosophy is reactionary ideology. The intent is to strip people of their only effective weapon against the existing order.

Scientists are slaves in the service of the existing order.

As capitalism has developed, mechanical materialism – described variously more recently as ‘scientism’, ‘positivism’, ‘hard-nosed objectivity’ – has become the dominant ideology. Science as ideology has extended the reductionist methods of natural science over the human sciences as well, turning human subjects into objects (that is, making the potentially active, passive) – at its logical extreme reducing human beings to ‘nothing but’ the abstract categories of biological and chemical laws. All knowledge except that which is legitimised by this mechanical materialism is denied. The consequence, as the ‘scientists’ are the producers of mechanical materialism, is that science becomes an ideology and scientists the ideologists. How does this work? As the material world controls the limits of an interpretation of the scientist in his own work, the answer lies, as Marx and Engels saw, outside the precise research area, where the scientist, freed from such constraints, talks (typically in the name of science) pure ideology. In the name of science, invoking neutrality, technique and expertise, the scientist supports the ruling strata.--Steven Rose. "The Problematic Inheritance: Marx and Engels on the Natural Sciences." Chapter 1 of The Political Economy of Science: Ideology of / in the Natural Sciences, p. 9.

Depends on what philosophy is based on, be it science based or as with Aquinas and his ' the necessity of angels,' which is reason alone.

 

[pood]

On a science show today a physicist said

‘… I feel sorry for philosophers, they can’t measure anything’

What does philosophy say about what human life depends on?


Science bakes bread, philosophy bakes Twinkies … tastes sweet but no nutritional value,


It appears that to some philosophy is as much an identity and ideology as theists. They will defend beliefs to the bitter end.

Steve obviously really applied himself to studying this thread and the associated links,

This is a very provincial view of life, shared, I am given to understand, by a number of engineers, some of whom are actually ID creationists. It’s just really silly to think everything is an engineering problem.

 

[pood]

Anybody can learn to measure shit. Thinking hard and well about life, science, sociology, politics, ethics, logic, existential meaning, and associated topics is the very stuff of life, and that is philosophy.

 

[pood]

As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy.--Marx

The denigration of philosophy is reactionary ideology. The intent is to strip people of their only effective weapon against the existing order.

Scientists are slaves in the service of the existing order.

As capitalism has developed, mechanical materialism – described variously more recently as ‘scientism’, ‘positivism’, ‘hard-nosed objectivity’ – has become the dominant ideology. Science as ideology has extended the reductionist methods of natural science over the human sciences as well, turning human subjects into objects (that is, making the potentially active, passive) – at its logical extreme reducing human beings to ‘nothing but’ the abstract categories of biological and chemical laws. All knowledge except that which is legitimised by this mechanical materialism is denied. The consequence, as the ‘scientists’ are the producers of mechanical materialism, is that science becomes an ideology and scientists the ideologists. How does this work? As the material world controls the limits of an interpretation of the scientist in his own work, the answer lies, as Marx and Engels saw, outside the precise research area, where the scientist, freed from such constraints, talks (typically in the name of science) pure ideology. In the name of science, invoking neutrality, technique and expertise, the scientist supports the ruling strata.--Steven Rose. "The Problematic Inheritance: Marx and Engels on the Natural Sciences." Chapter 1 of The Political Economy of Science: Ideology of / in the Natural Sciences, p. 9.

This seems to comport well with some of Feyerabend’s critiques of science as social practice.

 

[bilby]

I think we can do without the AI overviews, ...

Rather than source, I see it as a matter of considering the merit of the information content. AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers. If something is wrong, that can be addressed regardless of its source.

Not so. AI overviews do not and cannot explain their reasoning. A human writer can open an account here and can be asked to do so; Even a deceased source was usually challenged in their own lifetime, and has a body of work that can be examined for clarification.

AI is no better than "I have an unnamed mate who has spent a lot of time on the Internet, and here is his opinion..."

If your mate won't or can't sign up to this board, and won't or can't be named, and identified with a history of statements, claims, reasoning, and academic or professional qualifications, then we don't gain anything from their input - whether they are a human or an AI.

As you say: "AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers". So we need to be able to at the very least ask questions of any source to determine how much of their stuff is garbage.

AI does not allow that, so it is just worthless noise.

AI Overview just gives a summary based on whatever information is available.

Whether it is bullshit or not. That's not helpful. You wouldn't just post a link to the first result from a seatch engine, witn no further comment (and it would be a ToU infraction if you did).

It may be a reasonable summary or it may wrong. If it is wrong, whatever is wrong may be addressed.

Which can happen without the spamming of threads with bullshit "AI Overview" nonsense.

If I thought the information was largely wrong, I would not quote it.

If you know it's not wrong, why not use your own words??

If you don't know it's not wrong, why post it at all??

I quote it because sometimes its convenient, time constraints, etc. No big deal.

It's SPAM.

Spamming a discussion board IS a big deal.

Please desist.

 

[steve_bank]

On a science show today a physicist said

‘… I feel sorry for philosophers, they can’t measure anything’

What does philosophy say about what human life depends on?


Science bakes bread, philosophy bakes Twinkies … tastes sweet but no nutritional value,


It appears that to some philosophy is as much an identity and ideology as theists. They will defend beliefs to the bitter end.

Steve obviously really applied himself to studying this thread and the associated links,

This is a very provincial view of life, shared, I am given to understand, by a number of engineers, some of whom are actually ID creationists. It’s just really silly to think everything is an engineering problem.

Again putting words in my mouth. Never said all things reduce to an 'engineering problem'.

One of the best pieces of advice I got when starting out was 'you can't apply engineering logic to people'.

I have posted several times I worked with creationists who were very good engineers. They compartmentalize science and engineering. Same with the history of science. Newton.

James Clerk Maxwell who in the late 19th century developed electromagnetics the foundation for electronics was a Christian. Einstein gave credit to Maxwell.

The idea that philosophy feeds science dies not hold up.

As to measurements, again you miss the point. Philosophy is subjective and not quantifiable, and science is.

From my experience all organized groups are the same. Norms and ways of ding hustings dfvelop. Hierarchical structures form. There is politics and infighting.

In that regards science, politics, unions, religion and so on have the same general social form. After all it is all the same humans with the same human brain.

People on the forum quote secular philosophers from ancient times to today much as Christians quote scripture.

Pattern recognition and seeing commonality is a necessary skill in science and engineering.

Today social groups are studied in sociology and psychology, not philosophy. They are sometimes called soft science.

In the 70s and 80s Zen became popular. Books on the Zen of business. A Book Of 5 Rings by an ancient Samurai Mustachio became popular for a while in business. Applying the Samurai warrior code and attitude to business completion.

If you want to read something other that the same old western philosophy read Book Of 5 Rings. He is an interesting character in non western philosophy. I read it in the 80s when I was into martial arts. I read Bruce Lee as well, he was a philosopher.

'Take what is udeful and fiorget the rets' whn it came to all of the martial arts.

Miyamoto Musashi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An individual in any occupation can find inspiration and personal guidance from any number of sources. That does not mean any given source of inspiration uniquely 'feeds ' the occupation.

That philosophy feeds science is a very simplistic view of a very complex social and intercultural process. Complex in that it is difficult to model in detail.

 

[DBT]

I think we can do without the AI overviews, ...

Rather than source, I see it as a matter of considering the merit of the information content. AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers. If something is wrong, that can be addressed regardless of its source.

Not so. AI overviews do not and cannot explain their reasoning. A human writer can open an account here and can be asked to do so; Even a deceased source was usually challenged in their own lifetime, and has a body of work that can be examined for clarification.

AI is no better than "I have an unnamed mate who has spent a lot of time on the Internet, and here is his opinion..."

If your mate won't or can't sign up to this board, and won't or can't be named, and identified with a history of statements, claims, reasoning, and academic or professional qualifications, then we don't gain anything from their input - whether they are a human or an AI.

As you say: "AI may well produce garbage, but so can human writers". So we need to be able to at the very least ask questions of any source to determine how much of their stuff is garbage.

AI does not allow that, so it is just worthless noise.

AI Overview just gives a summary based on whatever information is available.

Whether it is bullshit or not. That's not helpful. You wouldn't just post a link to the first result from a seatch engine, witn no further comment (and it would be a ToU infraction if you did).

It may be a reasonable summary or it may wrong. If it is wrong, whatever is wrong may be addressed.

Which can happen without the spamming of threads with bullshit "AI Overview" nonsense.

If I thought the information was largely wrong, I would not quote it.

If you know it's not wrong, why not use your own words??

If you don't know it's not wrong, why post it at all??

I quote it because sometimes its convenient, time constraints, etc. No big deal.

It's SPAM.

Spamming a discussion board IS a big deal.

Please desist.

Well, I disagree. It's not spam. I'd say that a distinction can be made, that the information content of my quote was both reasonable and relevant to the subject of philosophy and science, where a distinction was being made between science based philosophy and philosophical rationalism, ie, Aquinas, the necessity of angels, etc.

 

[DBT]

Anybody can learn to measure shit. Thinking hard and well about life, science, sociology, politics, ethics, logic, existential meaning, and associated topics is the very stuff of life, and that is philosophy.

Scientific theory as an explanatory narrative for observations being made, or a body of evidence doesn't seem to be a matter of philosophy, more a case of tying things together, explaining whatever is observed or discovered, testing and modifying according to the results. Is an explanation a matter of philosophy? Is an observation a matter of philosophy? Testing? Experimenting?

 

[pood]

That philosophy feeds science is a very simplistic view of a very complex social and intercultural process. Complex in that it is difficult to model in detail.

Philosophy has a huge impact on science and I’ve shown you countless examples of this.

 

[pood]

Anybody can learn to measure shit. Thinking hard and well about life, science, sociology, politics, ethics, logic, existential meaning, and associated topics is the very stuff of life, and that is philosophy.

Scientific theory as an explanatory narrative for observations being made, or a body of evidence doesn't seem to be a matter of philosophy, more a case of tying things together, explaining whatever is observed or discovered, testing and modifying according to the results. Is an explanation a matter of philosophy? Is an observation a matter of philosophy? Testing? Experimenting?

As has been repeatedly explained, philosophy does not have the same goals as science, though science, as a form of epistemology, is a branch of philosophy.

 

[pood]

Might as well post this again. I doubt Steve read it the first time and he probably won’t read it this time, either.

 

[pood]

How Hume helped Einstein dream up relativity

 

[Swammerdami]

How Hume helped Einstein dream up relativity

I gave a Wow! rather than just a Like! because I didn't know that, and it leaves me somewhat astounded! Thanks for this, pood!

- - - - - - - - - -
I was in the process of testing ChatGPT in another tab (that bot certainly predicts a dire future if Trump strengthens although "I [the bot] don’t take sides in elections or endorse/oppose particular voters.")

As a different test, I presented it with

* "To what earlier thinkers does Einstein owe his Special Theory of Relativity?"
-- ChatGPT listed ten physicists. No Hume.

I rephrased the question:
* "What earlier thinkers did Einstein credit as helping inspire his Special Theory of Relativity?"
-- ChatGPT just gave a subset of the ten names given in answer to the first query.

I don't think this contradicts my claim that ChatGPT produces undergraduate-level summaries, deserving about B+ or better, on a wide variety of topics.

 

[pood]

AI overview does list Hume as an influence “on a deeper conceptual level.” I would also like to mention again that Hume presented a powerful argument against intelligent design or a universal designer long before Darwin came along.

 

[steve_bank]

If science comes from philosophy, from what does philosophy come from? What guides philosophy?

If science is philosophy then philosophers should get themselves a lab coat, a pocket protector,a slide rule, and most importantly safety goggles. You never know when something will blow up in your face.

Philosophical thought experints can be dangerous.