Information is bogus.

[Speakpigeon]

I failed to see where you give the final straw argument showing philosophy is dead or something. It seems to me you're comparing apples and coconuts. You may prefer one over the other but the other will still be whatever it is and will remain so irrespective of how you feel about it.

Philosophy is not science. Yeah. Well. I sort of knew.

Me, I think it would be very sad for all of us if science was all there was to say about the world and about ourselves.
EB

 

[Hermit]

Newsflash! Science without philosophy. Pictures at seven.

It is more than somewhat ironic to interpret a collection of essays written by a philosopher, most of whose life's was spent dealing with epistemology (the philosophy of science), as being about the split of science and philosophy. Not so much ironic, actually, as profoundly mistaken.

 

[steve_bank]

I never said philosophy is dead. The problem with philosophy is there are no possible unambiguous definitions.

Witness years of debates on the forum arguing in the end over meaning.

Science has SI which is an unambiguous language of sorts.

Way back philosophies used to be a source for moral values. What is the best way to live? That has been replaced by the Abrahamic religions. Confucianism was about what it meant to be a moral man.

There are no current philosophies or movement's that can compete with western religion. If anything young people are deriving morality and values from music and video entertainment, Hollywood.

I had 5 classes in philosophy. They were valuable to me in retrospect. Those and 2 poly sci classes were where I learned to think through and write about ideas.

I believe on of the things Aquinas was known was trying to recocile Greek traditions qwith Christianity.

 

[steve_bank]

Newsflash! Science without philosophy. Pictures at seven.

It is more than somewhat ironic to interpret a collection of essays written by a philosopher, most of whose life's was spent dealing with epistemology (the philosophy of science), as being about the split of science and philosophy. Not so much ironic, actually, as profoundly mistaken.

A forum blast from the past, philosophy owns science therefore philopizing is science, an old argument.

When you said philosophy above define for me exactly what you mean. No dictionary definitions.

Before the 1800s academically there was Doctor Of Law, Doctor Pf medicine, and Doctor Of Philosophy. Philosophy was a catch all for knowledge, morality, wisdom and thoughts in general.

People use the term philosophy without any qualification.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I never said philosophy is dead. The problem with philosophy is there are no possible unambiguous definitions.

Sure, and that's also true for everyday exchanges between husband and wife, parents and children, teachers and pupils, Mr. John and his dog and what not. That's life. Time to wake up! And now what are you going to do about that? Use science? The ultimate fixer?

Tell me when you done fixing the world.

Witness years of debates on the forum arguing in the end over meaning.

Yeah, right. Pathetic.

Still, me, I've learned something. I'm disappointed to learn you didn't.

Science has SI which is an unambiguous language of sorts.

So, shall we strip our linguistic exchanges to the bone?

In the name of efficacy?

Or is it meaningfulness?

Way back philosophies used to be a source for moral values. What is the best way to live? That has been replaced by the Abrahamic religions. Confucianism was about what it meant to be a moral man.

And me who thought there had been a whole litany of Great Philosophers well after Jesus had been crucified.

Talk of a "one liner"! Your quip just killed off the whole bunch. Marx sure is dead for good now.

There are no current philosophies or movement's that can compete with western religion. If anything young people are deriving morality and values from music and video entertainment, Hollywood.

As I understand it, all but a select few of the young people at the time of Aristotle couldn't even read or write. Nowadays, they can and they also have a life of their own. I hope it's not a problem for you?

And since there are more books on philosophy published every year in our time than ever before it must be that some young people are still learning from somewhere else than Western religion and rock & roll.

I had 5 classes in philosophy. They were valuable to me in retrospect. Those and 2 poly sci classes were where I learned to think through and write about ideas.

I'll be waiting for you to impress me with those. In your own time. No hurry.

I believe on of the things Aquinas was known was trying to recocile Greek traditions qwith Christianity.

Can't read that.

Maybe you'd need to reconcile yourself with your keyboard first before going into showing to us how you think through and write so well those great ideas of yours.
EB

 

[Hermit]

I never said philosophy is dead.

Nobody said you did. You did say

In Objective Knowledge Popper describes the split of science and philosophy.

Popper did no such thing. Being a philosopher generally, and an epistemologist in particular, he knew very well that there cannot be science without an underlying philosophy. Science and philosophy cannot be split.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I never said philosophy is dead.

Nobody said you did. and that th

That's right.

You did say

In Objective Knowledge Popper describes the split of science and philosophy.

Popper did no such thing. Being a philosopher generally, and an epistemologist in particular, he knew very well that there cannot be science without an underlying philosophy. Science and philosophy cannot be split.

I'm pleased to be in agreement with Karl on this.

I would even go a little bit further and say we all, scientists included, necessarily have to rely on various a priori metaphysical beliefs, i.e. metaphysical beliefs not submitted to critical investigation.

Still, we can concede that there's still a substantial difference between people who try to reduce these metaphysical beliefs as much as they can, or try to have a critical attitude to them, and people who indulge in metaphysics, without much restraint.

Now, I'm not sure that scientists are necessarily those that least indulge in them compared to philosophers. In fact, I believe having a training in philosophy is a good start to adopt a critical attitude towards these beliefs and that most scientists spend too little time on philosophy to even become aware they may have those beliefs.

Obviously, people like Einstein (http://inters.org/Contemporary-Scientists), while not necessarily beyond any criticism, have done their homework. This is as much we can ask. Many others don't even rise up to that challenge.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Information is bogus? Where are you getting your information from?

 

[steve_bank]

Popper's book focused on what if any knowledge is objective. He also looked at how knowledge becomes taken as fact. Its been over twenty years, as I recall he described the process as different worlds.

Philosophy used to encompass all knowledge...philosopy is love of knowledge Today psychology, science, history, anthropology, linguistics and the rest are all well established independent disciplines.

Philosophy is left with debating epistemology and morality and a few other things. Secular meaning of life. Knowledge and its pursuit evolved past the confines of a single broad category.

 

[steve_bank]

Newsflash! Science without philosophy. Pictures at seven.

It is more than somewhat ironic to interpret a collection of essays written by a philosopher, most of whose life's was spent dealing with epistemology (the philosophy of science), as being about the split of science and philosophy. Not so much ironic, actually, as profoundly mistaken.

Is there a particular work of philosophy on which science rests?

 

[steve_bank]

SP

As to Aristotle, true. To my point in antiquity schools of philosophy were the sources of wisdom and morality.

For over a thousand years Christianity has replaced philosophy as the moral structure in the west.

 

[steve_bank]

Still waiting for somebody to explain when they say 'philosophy is ...' The inference is something called philosophy has some specific purpose and tangible objective-results.

The word philosophy is used much like theists use god. an ill defined generality.

 

[fast]

Still waiting for somebody to explain when they say 'philosophy is ...' The inference is something called philosophy has some specific purpose and tangible objective-results.

The word philosophy is used much like theists use god. an ill defined generality.

Philosophy is talk about talk. So, the subject matter isn't what it appears to be. While others talk about something, philosophers step in and talk about the discussion, not necessarily what the discussion is about. Meta talk if ya will. Like a helicopter hovering just beyond the subject matter at hand. It's akin to talking about the word "dog" when others are talking about dogs. That's why the use-mention distinction becomes so important, as the actual subject matter at hand can easily be confused.

 

[Speakpigeon]

<snip>
The difference between philosophy and science is that Science has a set of unambiguous definitions, Systems International.
<snip>
Philosophy was left with meaning and arguments over meaning.
<snip>

That's also a very good point I missed in my first reading. I've not been quite myself lately!

Still, your plug leaves out something rather crucial, which is that the question of meaning seems to be relevant to just about every area of rationalisation. I would accept that science is broadly speaking autonomous in its own effort of rationalisation. However, aspects of reality that have been rationalised by science, while they make up a very impressive set, still do not include quite a lot of what human beings are and do, essentially leaving it for philosophy.

And then, it seems rather a good idea, and indeed a very important activity, that philosophers should be so concerned with essentially sorting out what human beings mean when they talk about what they are and what they do. If anyone can do better than that, they're welcome to chip in.

As I see it, quite a lot of rationalising activities humans have can be regarded as halfway between philosophy and science. Or that there is a continuum between philosophy proper and the hard sciences, the latter being the only ones to use "a set of unambiguous definitions". Overall, those "in between" activities are mobilising far more manpower and funds than philosophy proper, and have a more direct impact on many more people than does philosophy, which shows the constant sniping at philosophy indulged in by some people here to be something more like personal obsessions than anything rational.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Newsflash! Science without philosophy. Pictures at seven.

It is more than somewhat ironic to interpret a collection of essays written by a philosopher, most of whose life's was spent dealing with epistemology (the philosophy of science), as being about the split of science and philosophy. Not so much ironic, actually, as profoundly mistaken.

Is there a particular work of philosophy on which science rests?

Einstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
With a few friends he had met in Bern, Einstein started a small discussion group in 1902, self-mockingly named "The Olympia Academy", which met regularly to discuss science and philosophy. Their readings included the works of Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and David Hume, which influenced his scientific and philosophical outlook.

Einstein's Philosophy of Science
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#IntWasEinEpiOpp
"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." (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

Einstein's Philosophy of Science
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#IntWasEinEpiOpp
"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this." (Einstein 1916, 101)

Einstein's Philosophy of Science
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#IntWasEinEpiOpp
"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason. (Einstein 1916, 102)" (Einstein 1916, 101)

Einstein's Philosophy of Science
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#IntWasEinEpiOpp
One is not surprised at Einstein's then citing Mach's critical analysis of the Newtonian conception of absolute space as a paradigm of what Mach, himself, termed the “historical-critical” method of philosophical analysis (Einstein 1916, 101, citing Ch. 2, §§ 6–7 of Mach's Mechanik, most likely the third edition, Mach 1897).
The place of philosophy in physics was a theme to which Einstein returned time and again, it being clearly an issue of deep importance to him.

And that's just Einstein.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

SP
For over a thousand years Christianity has replaced philosophy as the moral structure in the west.

Such an oversimplification isn't worth disputing.

Philosophers have been very active as critics of the religious ideology for a very long time.

Did science fared any better during that time?

Are you done proving God doesn't exist using SI definitions?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still waiting for somebody to explain when they say 'philosophy is ...' The inference is something called philosophy has some specific purpose and tangible objective-results.

The word philosophy is used much like theists use god. an ill defined generality.

Just as the word "science".

I already told you, that's true of really a lot of all the words we use.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=philosophy

Search for "philosophy": 1873 documents found

Search for "science": 1428 documents found

Philosophy

1. (Philosophy) The academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)

2. (Philosophy) the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes.

3. (Philosophy) the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law.

4. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) archaic or literary the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy

5. any system of belief, values, or tenets

6. a personal outlook or viewpoint

7. serenity of temper

Science

1. the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms

2. the knowledge so obtained or the practice of obtaining it

3. any particular branch of this knowledge: the pure and applied sciences.

4. any body of knowledge organized in a systematic manner

5. skill or technique

6. archaic knowledge

See?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Philosophy is talk about talk. So, the subject matter isn't what it appears to be. While others talk about something, philosophers step in and talk about the discussion, not necessarily what the discussion is about. Meta talk if ya will. Like a helicopter hovering just beyond the subject matter at hand. It's akin to talking about the word "dog" when others are talking about dogs. That's why the use-mention distinction becomes so important, as the actual subject matter at hand can easily be confused.

Good point too!

We could also say that a lot of philosophy is talk about philosophy.

Actually, science does that quite lot too! All specialists I guess have to argue among themselves on what they would usually call "technical points". Things that they only understand. Before they could be bothered to fix problems in the real world.

Just look at politics!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Information is an ourobouros. You cannot say that something is information without relying on more information to make that determination.

If it's an "ourobouros", then it will last an eternity.

So, "there's no such thing as information", but it will last an eternity.

I'm learning something everyday.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Philosophy is talk about talk. So, the subject matter isn't what it appears to be. While others talk about something, philosophers step in and talk about the discussion, not necessarily what the discussion is about. Meta talk if ya will. Like a helicopter hovering just beyond the subject matter at hand. It's akin to talking about the word "dog" when others are talking about dogs. That's why the use-mention distinction becomes so important, as the actual subject matter at hand can easily be confused.

Good point too!

We could also say that a lot of philosophy is talk about philosophy.

Actually, science does that quite lot too! All specialists I guess have to argue among themselves on what they would usually call "technical points". Things that they only understand. Before they could be bothered to fix problems in the real world.

Just look at politics!
EB

Just like a philosopher. Don't like the way things are going point and say "Look".