What useful stuff has *modern* philosophy accomplished for man-kind?

[Keith&Co.]

Generally, at some point, you're expected to actually express an idea alongside the quotes.
Else someone might say you're not offering a rational discourse in a forum designed for discussion.

 

[WAB]

Generally, at some point, you're expected to actually express an idea alongside the quotes.
Else someone might say you're not offering a rational discourse in a forum designed for discussion.

Edited out my stupid response.

Love ya, Boris!

 

[DBT]

I should not be speaking for No Robots. Just as Speakpigeon probably shouldn't have gone to bat for Togo.

I didn't. I was addressing DBT's wrongful treatment of a post that happened to be that of Togo. Clearly I'm doing that kind of thing more often than most and most never do that at all. Maybe I'm getting too old but I guess I was concerned about the standard of the discussions and about misbehaviours. In this case I only addressed the issue because DBT's wording is often sloppy enough to obscure to most readers what he is actually doing. Again, whether he is doing it wilfully or not is beside the point once his attention has been properly drawn to the problem.
EB

What is truly sloppy is your comprehension. The subject matter was not difficult to grasp. Togo made a claim in regard to scientists consulting with philosophers on matters of science at his University, and I questioned him on the issue. You poked your nose into the discussion with one of your typical smokescreens, a peacock with ruffled feather engaging with mock outrage at whatever happens to be said. Just the way you typically engage with anyone you happen to disagree with.

 

[Kharakov]

You didn't even question Togo. As far as I can tell, neither of you said anything about any of the stuff you have allegedly said, and the whole thing has blown way out of proportion.

The fact of the matter is this. A philosopher was asked about Schrödinger's cat at a banquet one night. As the philosopher was contemplating the answer, a rude scientist interrupted his thought process by bumping into his Martini. The night had started out rather dismally, in the poor philosopher's mind. Not only was his thought process interrupted by the rude scientist, but he also smelled like bottom shelf gin with a splash of dry vermouth. And his olive was in the grass.

So really, the only one who should be angry about the whole situation is the philosopher. But no. The scientist had rushed to the scene upon hearing from a close confidant that a philosopher had been asked to interpret the thought experiment involving Schrödinger's cat! Now, remembering a past assault on his intellect by an equally pompous individual (for all philosophers he had meet were pompous, worthless blowhards), he could not drunkenly stand by while one of the great accomplishments of his profession was bloviated upon by such a.. he didn't even have a word to describe how he felt about philosophers at that moment.

So the psychologist had rushed to the scene, caught up in his anger, having forgotten that moments before he was to be introduced to the individual that his partner had sent him to meet in his stead. Needless to say, balancing out amphetamines, alcohol, and benzos was not his forte.

The philosopher's name tag caught his eye. Now the philosopher knew that the other individual was a scientist, for at this event, there were only scientists and investors. It was easy to tell the 2 groups apart, for the scientists who had worked on the project were a relatively nerdy, jocular group, and the investors were by and large, well, large, and louder than the others. He was surprised that one of the scientists, who was supposed to be wining and dining the investors, was bumbling around, causing problems. His opinion of the scientists as a whole was lower because of this bumbling fool, and he rather doubted he wanted to sit through their whole presentation at this point.

He looked down at his pants and decided he had had enough of this fiasco. It was time for him to leave- he would tell his friend of the behavior of the scientists, and recommend against investing in the young startup. If the scientists could not control themselves in an event as important as this, they were definitely not a group that he would recommend to his friend.

The scientist couldn't quite read the name tag because it was obscured by the flap of the philosopher's breast pocket. While he stared at the tag, hoping to read the name so he could come up with a clever, insulting quip, the philosopher abruptly turned, and stalked away. I knew he was a pompous ass, thought the extremely inebriated scientist.

Maybe I shouldn't have drank quite so much, or ate quite so many pills, but truth be told, he didn't think he liked the other investors anyway, especially since they included that arrogant philosopher. He hadn't been able to find his partner's old college buddy at the party, but it didn't matter at this point. He and his partner would not be investing in a company that attracted the likes of the philosopher.

The next day he'd be hung over, but at least he didn't have to think about investing in the young company. He could by a yacht with his money, or let his wife remodel the house a 3rd time. Maybe it would look nice this time?

 

[DBT]

You didn't even question Togo. As far as I can tell, neither of you said anything about any of the stuff you have allegedly said, and the whole thing has blown way out of proportion.

I thought I did...well, gosh, look, I did in fact question Togo about his proposition.

Just a sample:

Consult with philosophers in regard to...what?

Constructing your hypothesis cannot be achieved without the necessary information. How do you get the necessary information for your hypothesis without prior observation, information gathering and testing?

Seems unusual. Why would a scientist need to consult a philosopher in order to carry out his work? The only reason I can think of is in relation to ethical questions. Perhaps animal related tests, etc.

Can you describe what you were referring to?

What you say doesn't appear to be related to philosophy. Why bring in a philosopher to check scientific data?

How is ''philosophy'' being defined?

So I ask the question again: what precisely is the need for scientists to consult with philosophers in relation to scientific experiments and results?

 

[Kharakov]

I thought I did...well, gosh, look, I did in fact question Togo about his proposition.

I obviously meant that statement to mean what it meant, rather than what I meant in to mean. If you can't take time out of your busy schedule to infer the meaning of my statements, I don't know how we can ever have a serious discussion.

Consult with philosophers in regard to...what?

I don't see how this is a question. It ended with you obviously being distracted from making a statement, and accidentally replying with your keyboard instead of speaking aloud to whoever walked in the room.

Constructing your hypothesis cannot be achieved without the necessary information. How do you get the necessary information for your hypothesis without prior observation, information gathering and testing?

Obviously a mistyped rhetorical question (else should be written after how), not one designed to gather information. No need to further elaborate with more information from that post. I can tell what you meant, even though your statement means something different because you forgot a word or 2.

Seems unusual. Why would a scientist need to consult a philosopher in order to carry out his work? The only reason I can think of is in relation to ethical questions. Perhaps animal related tests, etc.

Can you describe what you were referring to?

Exactly- you are spot on. The rhetorical question above (Why would a scientist...?) is what I was referring to. The follow up question was obviously placed in the post in anticipation of this conversation, which indicates great foresight on your part. Kudos!

What you say doesn't appear to be related to philosophy. Why bring in a philosopher to check scientific data?

How is ''philosophy'' being defined?

2 more excellent rhetorical questions, I so enjoy the way you have used them to prove your point.

So I ask the question again: what precisely is the need for scientists to consult with philosophers in relation to scientific experiments and results?

Tying a rhetorical question to the work ask is a work of philosophical wonder, obviously showing the precise need for scientists to consult with philosophers in relation to experiments and results. Who else would be able to interpret whether questions are truly rhetorical or not?

Show

I know.

 

[DBT]

I obviously meant that statement to mean what it meant, rather than what I meant in to mean. If you can't take time out of your busy schedule to infer the meaning of my statements, I don't know how we can ever have a serious discussion.

Consult with philosophers in regard to...what?

I don't see how this is a question. It ended with you obviously being distracted from making a statement, and accidentally replying with your keyboard instead of speaking aloud to whoever walked in the room.

Constructing your hypothesis cannot be achieved without the necessary information. How do you get the necessary information for your hypothesis without prior observation, information gathering and testing?

Obviously a mistyped rhetorical question (else should be written after how), not one designed to gather information. No need to further elaborate with more information from that post. I can tell what you meant, even though your statement means something different because you forgot a word or 2.

Seems unusual. Why would a scientist need to consult a philosopher in order to carry out his work? The only reason I can think of is in relation to ethical questions. Perhaps animal related tests, etc.

Can you describe what you were referring to?

Exactly- you are spot on. The rhetorical question above (Why would a scientist...?) is what I was referring to. The follow up question was obviously placed in the post in anticipation of this conversation, which indicates great foresight on your part. Kudos!

What you say doesn't appear to be related to philosophy. Why bring in a philosopher to check scientific data?

How is ''philosophy'' being defined?

2 more excellent rhetorical questions, I so enjoy the way you have used them to prove your point.

So I ask the question again: what precisely is the need for scientists to consult with philosophers in relation to scientific experiments and results?

Tying a rhetorical question to the work ask is a work of philosophical wonder, obviously showing the precise need for scientists to consult with philosophers in relation to experiments and results. Who else would be able to interpret whether questions are truly rhetorical or not?

Show

I know.

None of these questions were meant to be rhetorical. They were questions. Yeah, I guess it's back to the 'how is this being interpreted?'' issue. Nevertheless, I asked the questions because I wanted to get an explanation for the claims that were being made.

Reading the narrative, and given the context, I'd tend think that is reasonably clear that I was simply asking questions. That would be my first assumption.

 

[WAB]

DBT: Constructing your hypothesis cannot be achieved without the necessary information. How do you get the necessary information for your hypothesis without prior observation, information gathering and testing?

Kharakov: Obviously a mistyped rhetorical question (else should be written after how), not one designed to gather information. No need to further elaborate with more information from that post. I can tell what you meant, even though your statement means something different because you forgot a word or 2.

K, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think DBT needed the 'else', since that function is provided by 'without' later on?

Or am I reading it wrong? Could very well be. Not only that, I'm a grammartard.

 

[Kharakov]

None of these questions were meant to be rhetorical. They were questions. Yeah, I guess it's back to the 'how is this being interpreted?'' issue. Nevertheless, I asked the questions because I wanted to get an explanation for the claims that were being made.

Reading the narrative, and given the context, I'd tend think that is reasonably clear that I was simply asking questions. That would be my first assumption.

I know, I know. I couldn't resist posting what I did, and I figured you'd notice the over the top humor. I've quite enjoyed this thread, and hope that the sparring is mainly humorous.

 

[Kharakov]

Kharakov: Obviously a mistyped rhetorical question (else should be written after how), not one designed to gather information. No need to further elaborate with more information from that post. I can tell what you meant, even though your statement means something different because you forgot a word or 2.

K, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think DBT needed the 'else', since that function is provided by 'without' later on?

Or am I reading it wrong?

I don't know. It feels more rhetorical to me with the "else" in it. Without the else, it really just seems like a question (which is what DBT intended).

DBT did not need the "else" in the statement for DBT's purposes, but my joke required (I think??) the else to be inserted after the how.

 

[DBT]

None of these questions were meant to be rhetorical. They were questions. Yeah, I guess it's back to the 'how is this being interpreted?'' issue. Nevertheless, I asked the questions because I wanted to get an explanation for the claims that were being made.

Reading the narrative, and given the context, I'd tend think that is reasonably clear that I was simply asking questions. That would be my first assumption.

I know, I know. I couldn't resist posting what I did, and I figured you'd notice the over the top humor. I've quite enjoyed this thread, and hope that it is mainly humorous.

No worries Kharakov. Compared to some, you are a pleasure to deal with.

 

[WAB]

K, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think DBT needed the 'else', since that function is provided by 'without' later on?

Or am I reading it wrong?

I don't know. It feels more rhetorical to me with the "else" in it. Without the else, it really just seems like a question (which is what DBT intended).

DBT did not need the "else" in the statement for DBT's purposes, but my joke required (I think??) the else to be inserted after the how.

I see.

 

[DBT]

I don't know. It feels more rhetorical to me with the "else" in it. Without the else, it really just seems like a question (which is what DBT intended).

DBT did not need the "else" in the statement for DBT's purposes, but my joke required (I think??) the else to be inserted after the how.

I see.

Rhetoric! Rhetoric left right and centre. Intricate yet ultimately meaningless semantic constructs being both the making and the downfall of Philosophical inquiry.

 

[WAB]

I see.

Rhetoric! Rhetoric left right and centre. Intricate yet ultimately meaningless semantic constructs being both the making and the downfall of Philosophical inquiry.

"I see": translation: "I don't get it, but I'm too tired to argue."

 

[DBT]

Rhetoric! Rhetoric left right and centre. Intricate yet ultimately meaningless semantic constructs being both the making and the downfall of Philosophical inquiry.

"I see": translation: "I don't get it, but I'm too tired to argue."

Interesting name change.


I thought that's what you meant, so it was not directed at anyone, just a passing comment.

 

[WAB]

"I see": translation: "I don't get it, but I'm too tired to argue."

Interesting name change.


I thought that's what you meant, so it was not directed at anyone, just a passing comment.

I know, DBT, we're good.

Yeah, I got tired of being WilliamB. Loretta comes from Monty Python's Life of Brian:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. (A girly lesbian, not one of those butch types!)

J. Hyde is probably pretty obvious, what with my inner-conflicts.