What Is Philosophy?

[Jarhyn]

That's not the science though. That's all "around" the science, meta and all that.

Isn't that constructing an ideal that does not exist? Without scientists, there is no Science. But scientists are people, situated in webs of cultute politics, funding... one thing that drives the appeal of science for me is its ability to undercit those biases, but it will always be an unfinished enterprise. There's always something you haven't realized you need to look at yet.

No, it's not. Science is a process. It is more just an emergent methodology of testing. In some ways Evolution itself is a "scientific" process against a question with very arbitrary answers.

 

[pood]

A current example of science and philosophy intermingling: On one side we have the biologist P.Z. Myers (among many other biologists) holding that sex is not binary, but a continuum. One the other side we have the biologists Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins (among many other biologists) holding that sex is strictly binary. The dispute has gotten nasty, with Coyne deriding Myers as a “miscreant” while Myers has repeatedly and personally castigated Coyne and Dawkins, in highly personal terms.

Who is right? If scientism were true —only scientific statements have meaning and get at truth — this dispute would not e possible. Hence, scientism is false. The dispute, of course, is philosophical. Philosophy is at the very heart of science.

The dispute is (to be more specific) ideological - ideology being a (very stupid) form of philosophy.

There's an objective and scientific answer; Myers is right, and Dawkins and Coyne are wrong.

But ideology frequently trumps science, particularly when it comes to questions that have longstanding religious "answers" that are objectively wrong, but widely indoctrinated into children.

Science is, in a very real sense, the art of persuading oneself to accept that ones cherished beliefs may be objectively wrong. Humans, even those trained as scientists, are very, very bad at doing that.

I wouldn’t agree that it’s an objective scientific fact that Myers is right, though I think he is. I think, rather, that there an objective set of facts that both sides actually agree on, but they differ on their interpretations of the facts, which surely is driven by their own ideologies, backgrounds, biases, predispositions. Coyne and Dawkins take a “gametes only” approach to defining sex. Myers and others take into account gametes plus anatomy, physiology, genetics and hormones. Who is right? There is no scientific test to decide who is right. There are only values, priorities, and interpretations. I think Myers has the correct values, priorities, and interpretations, but those are human things, not science things. Science is value-laden.

 

[Jarhyn]

A current example of science and philosophy intermingling: On one side we have the biologist P.Z. Myers (among many other biologists) holding that sex is not binary, but a continuum. One the other side we have the biologists Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins (among many other biologists) holding that sex is strictly binary. The dispute has gotten nasty, with Coyne deriding Myers as a “miscreant” while Myers has repeatedly and personally castigated Coyne and Dawkins, in highly personal terms.

Who is right? If scientism were true —only scientific statements have meaning and get at truth — this dispute would not e possible. Hence, scientism is false. The dispute, of course, is philosophical. Philosophy is at the very heart of science.

The dispute is (to be more specific) ideological - ideology being a (very stupid) form of philosophy.

There's an objective and scientific answer; Myers is right, and Dawkins and Coyne are wrong.

But ideology frequently trumps science, particularly when it comes to questions that have longstanding religious "answers" that are objectively wrong, but widely indoctrinated into children.

Science is, in a very real sense, the art of persuading oneself to accept that ones cherished beliefs may be objectively wrong. Humans, even those trained as scientists, are very, very bad at doing that.

I wouldn’t agree that it’s an objective scientific fact that Myers is right, though I think he is. I think, rather, that there an objective set of facts that both sides actually agree on, but they differ on their interpretations of the facts, which surely is driven by their own ideologies, backgrounds, biases, predispositions. Coyne and Dawkins take a “gametes only” approach to defining sex. Myers and others take into account gametes plus anatomy, physiology, genetics and hormones. Who is right? There is no scientific test to decide who is right. There are only values, priorities, and interpretations. I think Myers has the correct values, priorities, and interpretations, but those are human things, not science things. Science is value-laden.

But my point here is that if they take a gametes-only approach to sex, sex is not binary, it's quaternary at least, as people can be both or neither are that point, too.

 

[pood]

A current example of science and philosophy intermingling: On one side we have the biologist P.Z. Myers (among many other biologists) holding that sex is not binary, but a continuum. One the other side we have the biologists Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins (among many other biologists) holding that sex is strictly binary. The dispute has gotten nasty, with Coyne deriding Myers as a “miscreant” while Myers has repeatedly and personally castigated Coyne and Dawkins, in highly personal terms.

Who is right? If scientism were true —only scientific statements have meaning and get at truth — this dispute would not e possible. Hence, scientism is false. The dispute, of course, is philosophical. Philosophy is at the very heart of science.

The dispute is (to be more specific) ideological - ideology being a (very stupid) form of philosophy.

There's an objective and scientific answer; Myers is right, and Dawkins and Coyne are wrong.

But ideology frequently trumps science, particularly when it comes to questions that have longstanding religious "answers" that are objectively wrong, but widely indoctrinated into children.

Science is, in a very real sense, the art of persuading oneself to accept that ones cherished beliefs may be objectively wrong. Humans, even those trained as scientists, are very, very bad at doing that.

I wouldn’t agree that it’s an objective scientific fact that Myers is right, though I think he is. I think, rather, that there an objective set of facts that both sides actually agree on, but they differ on their interpretations of the facts, which surely is driven by their own ideologies, backgrounds, biases, predispositions. Coyne and Dawkins take a “gametes only” approach to defining sex. Myers and others take into account gametes plus anatomy, physiology, genetics and hormones. Who is right? There is no scientific test to decide who is right. There are only values, priorities, and interpretations. I think Myers has the correct values, priorities, and interpretations, but those are human things, not science things. Science is value-laden.

But my point here is that if they take a gametes-only approach to sex, sex is not binary, it's quaternary at least, as people can be both or neither are that point, too.

Well, yes, they are disregarding what’s they would call the outlier cases, as well as playing down genetics, physiology, etc. as irrelevant to the issue. Those are value judgments — poor values on the part of Coyne’s and Dawkins, in my view.

 

[DBT]

I don't know. Observation and testing does not appear to be philosophy, but the underlying love of discovery and understanding may be.

 

[Tharmas]

'Wisdom' may be a sticky point?

If it were easily won, it would not be such a tempting target.

What is the price of Experience? Do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No, it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy
And in the wither'd field where the farmer ploughs for bread in vain

from The Four Zoas, by William Blake

Just an aside. Let's return to the interesting discussion.

 

[Politesse]

I don't know. Observation and testing does not appear to be philosophy, but the underlying love of discovery and understanding may be.

Observation and testing by themselves are not a science. All conscious organisms observe, try, and adjust. But a wolf or a panda bear cannot be a scientist. Science is a process of observation, inference, experimentation, refinement, and the patient reduction of ideas into ever more functional predictive models of the universe. Philosophy is not tangential to the process, it is the process.

 

[No Robots]

As Marx said, philosophy is the spiritual weapon of the proletariat. In order to use this weapon, one must have some knowledge and understanding of its commanding heights. What are the commanding heights of philosophy that will serve the revolutionary cause of the proletariat? The lineage is quite simple: Spinoza to Hegel to Marx to Constantin Brunner and Harry Waton. These last two are the most recent but are generally completely unknown. The reason they are unknown is that the professionals want nothing to do with spiritual revolution.

 

[WAB]

Spinoza would most certainty not have been in the Marx camp. And forget Waton. He was nuts.

 

[No Robots]

Spinoza would most certainty not have been in the Marx camp. And forget Waton. He was nuts.

Thus saith the bourgeoisie.

 

[DBT]

I don't know. Observation and testing does not appear to be philosophy, but the underlying love of discovery and understanding may be.

Observation and testing by themselves are not a science. All conscious organisms observe, try, and adjust. But a wolf or a panda bear cannot be a scientist. Science is a process of observation, inference, experimentation, refinement, and the patient reduction of ideas into ever more functional predictive models of the universe. Philosophy is not tangential to the process, it is the process.

OK, science as observation and systematically testing the acquired information in order to better understand the world? The information that animals acquire is being tested during their daily activity, but the animal is not systematically testing that information.

 

[Politesse]

I don't know. Observation and testing does not appear to be philosophy, but the underlying love of discovery and understanding may be.

Observation and testing by themselves are not a science. All conscious organisms observe, try, and adjust. But a wolf or a panda bear cannot be a scientist. Science is a process of observation, inference, experimentation, refinement, and the patient reduction of ideas into ever more functional predictive models of the universe. Philosophy is not tangential to the process, it is the process.

OK, science as observation and systematically testing the acquired information in order to better understand the world? The information that animals acquire is being tested during their daily activity, but the animal is not systematically testing that information.

What is "systematic" code for?

 

[DBT]

I don't know. Observation and testing does not appear to be philosophy, but the underlying love of discovery and understanding may be.

Observation and testing by themselves are not a science. All conscious organisms observe, try, and adjust. But a wolf or a panda bear cannot be a scientist. Science is a process of observation, inference, experimentation, refinement, and the patient reduction of ideas into ever more functional predictive models of the universe. Philosophy is not tangential to the process, it is the process.

OK, science as observation and systematically testing the acquired information in order to better understand the world? The information that animals acquire is being tested during their daily activity, but the animal is not systematically testing that information.

What is "systematic" code for?

No code, just shorthand for the scientific method.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

 

[Politesse]

I don't know. Observation and testing does not appear to be philosophy, but the underlying love of discovery and understanding may be.

Observation and testing by themselves are not a science. All conscious organisms observe, try, and adjust. But a wolf or a panda bear cannot be a scientist. Science is a process of observation, inference, experimentation, refinement, and the patient reduction of ideas into ever more functional predictive models of the universe. Philosophy is not tangential to the process, it is the process.

OK, science as observation and systematically testing the acquired information in order to better understand the world? The information that animals acquire is being tested during their daily activity, but the animal is not systematically testing that information.

What is "systematic" code for?

No code, just shorthand for the scientific method.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

I am trying to point out that what is being systematized is thought. Systematized thought being a functional definition of philosophy as well.

 

[DBT]

I don't know. Observation and testing does not appear to be philosophy, but the underlying love of discovery and understanding may be.

Observation and testing by themselves are not a science. All conscious organisms observe, try, and adjust. But a wolf or a panda bear cannot be a scientist. Science is a process of observation, inference, experimentation, refinement, and the patient reduction of ideas into ever more functional predictive models of the universe. Philosophy is not tangential to the process, it is the process.

OK, science as observation and systematically testing the acquired information in order to better understand the world? The information that animals acquire is being tested during their daily activity, but the animal is not systematically testing that information.

What is "systematic" code for?

No code, just shorthand for the scientific method.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

I am trying to point out that what is being systematized is thought. Systematized thought being a functional definition of philosophy as well.

That may be so, but it appears too simplistic. Where, given that definition of philosophy all animals with the ability to think and act may be defined as Philosophers.

 

[Politesse]

I don't know. Observation and testing does not appear to be philosophy, but the underlying love of discovery and understanding may be.

Observation and testing by themselves are not a science. All conscious organisms observe, try, and adjust. But a wolf or a panda bear cannot be a scientist. Science is a process of observation, inference, experimentation, refinement, and the patient reduction of ideas into ever more functional predictive models of the universe. Philosophy is not tangential to the process, it is the process.

OK, science as observation and systematically testing the acquired information in order to better understand the world? The information that animals acquire is being tested during their daily activity, but the animal is not systematically testing that information.

What is "systematic" code for?

No code, just shorthand for the scientific method.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

I am trying to point out that what is being systematized is thought. Systematized thought being a functional definition of philosophy as well.

That may be so, but it appears too simplistic. Where, given that definition of philosophy all animals with the ability to think and act may be defined as Philosophers.

If they have the capacity to create increasingly rational systems with which to organize their thoughts, sure.

 

[pood]

No code, just shorthand for the scientific method.

There is no scientific method.

 

[Politesse]

There is no scientific method.

There is on web pages for elementary schoolers.

 

[Jarhyn]

No code, just shorthand for the scientific method.

There is no scientific method.

I mean,there is: observe, describe, test, repeat until the results are useful enough for current needs.

 

[WAB]

Spinoza would most certainty not have been in the Marx camp. And forget Waton. He was nuts.

Thus saith the bourgeoisie.

No, I'm solidly in the saggy bottom end. Starving artist, all that...