-
Features
What useful stuff has philosophy accomplished for man-kind?
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
Achwienichtig
Member
The first thing that comes to mind is the study of logic, which was founded by Aristotle. Without logic, no computers. That's pretty significant I'd say.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
The Greek tradition established reason as the best basis for decisions, as opposed to revelation.
I'd call that important.
I'd call that important.
In a nutshell, how would you say that philosophy did that?
For mathematics, it was a matter of demystifying the study of relationships between values, and putting them on a logical and consistent basis.
Pythagoras is familiar to us in the context of the mathematics of a triangle, but his work wasn't initially incorporated into a broader logic system, but kept as the basis of secret society or cult, based in what is now Siciliy. This group kept his discoveries secret as knowledge about the fundamentals of the universe - particularly because the analysis of certain Pythagorean triads can be demonstrated to produce a surd - an amount that can not expressed in numeric form because the decimals keep going on forever. They went as far as to assassinate people who threatened to reveal their secrets. It was only later, by philosophers in Ancient Greece, that his discoveries were incorporated into a more general system of mathematics.
Similarly, with science. Science is the application of standaradised rules that were developed by philosophers. Science was simply 'natural philosophy' for hundreds of years. The practice of observing the actual world and reasoning logically from it. The principles of Occam's razor were introduced early on, Emperical reasoning was introduced later, and eventually the discpline was standardised into it's present form. Even today we have philosophy operating around the edges to tinker with the model. How do you incorporate medicine, with it's lack of repeatibility and reliance on individual case studies? The principles of 'levels of explanation' was drafted in when cognitive psychology shifted from studying individual behaviours to behavioural systems, and so on.
Science and maths use the tools provided by philosophers. This is not to try and belittle either science or maths, it's entirely possible to argue that it's harder to use these tools than to come up with them. But they didn't come out of a vacuum, or arise out of some kind unconscious grasping of principle. They took a lot of work.
And this is perhaps why philosophers are accused on only dealing with vaguely defined unanswerable problems. It's because well defined answerable problems are no longer their concern. It's the same reason why firemen seem to suffer so many burns.
Pythagoras is familiar to us in the context of the mathematics of a triangle, but his work wasn't initially incorporated into a broader logic system, but kept as the basis of secret society or cult, based in what is now Siciliy. This group kept his discoveries secret as knowledge about the fundamentals of the universe - particularly because the analysis of certain Pythagorean triads can be demonstrated to produce a surd - an amount that can not expressed in numeric form because the decimals keep going on forever. They went as far as to assassinate people who threatened to reveal their secrets. It was only later, by philosophers in Ancient Greece, that his discoveries were incorporated into a more general system of mathematics.
Similarly, with science. Science is the application of standaradised rules that were developed by philosophers. Science was simply 'natural philosophy' for hundreds of years. The practice of observing the actual world and reasoning logically from it. The principles of Occam's razor were introduced early on, Emperical reasoning was introduced later, and eventually the discpline was standardised into it's present form. Even today we have philosophy operating around the edges to tinker with the model. How do you incorporate medicine, with it's lack of repeatibility and reliance on individual case studies? The principles of 'levels of explanation' was drafted in when cognitive psychology shifted from studying individual behaviours to behavioural systems, and so on.
Science and maths use the tools provided by philosophers. This is not to try and belittle either science or maths, it's entirely possible to argue that it's harder to use these tools than to come up with them. But they didn't come out of a vacuum, or arise out of some kind unconscious grasping of principle. They took a lot of work.
And this is perhaps why philosophers are accused on only dealing with vaguely defined unanswerable problems. It's because well defined answerable problems are no longer their concern. It's the same reason why firemen seem to suffer so many burns.
DBT
Contributor
More a case of Greek thinkers engaging in several fields of endevour; philosophy, maths, science, geometry, astronomy, etc. Pure science, observation and testing, has no real need for philosophy. Philosophy is useful in relation to discovering the social and ethical implications of scientific discovery. Scientists generally do not consult philosophers when setting up experiments, or analyzing the results.
They did at my old lab.
My university also, for certain sciences and mathematics, made philosophy a compulsory subject. If you can't pass a basic philosophy module, you can't graduate. They did the same with statistics. The idea was to stop producing scientists who didn't understand the meaning of the statistics sections of their own papers, or who produced basic errors of logic in their reasoning.
Pure observation doesn't need philosophy. But then empirical testing isn't about pure observation, it's about constructing a logical hypothesis, and testing it through observation. The construction of the hypothesis and the conclusions you can reach from it are very little to do with the process of observing, and very much to do with logic and reason and understanding the statistical significance of the results.
Obviously you can just do science by rote. Particularly if you're in a well-established field where there is very little disagreement about the nature of what you're observing, then there is very little need to re-examine the logical constructions of your reasoning, because it's already well-established.
DBT
Contributor
Consult with philosophers in regard to...what?
logic and reason is not exclusive to philosophy. Logic and reason can, and should, be applied to practically every aspect of life.
There are several factors at work here:
1- Observation
2- acquiring information
3- correlating information
3 - testing information
Observation comes first. Information is gathered and sorted. Experiments are designed, constructed and carried out, and the experiment is observed. More information on the subject matter is gathered....and the process continues.
''Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.'' - Wiki.
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?
Setting up experiments and analysing the results. Just as you said.
Sure, but the study of the principles of logic is philosophy. You're welcome to argue with the university if you think they're doing it wrong.
Observation doesn't always come first, because you can construct an experiment to test almost any hypothesis, even one that wasn't previously based on observation. You can test whether personality traits are correlated with star signs, without first having any useful observations about whether they are connected. Similarly, you can design experiments to test conditions on the surface of Mars, despite never having been there. Depending on what you're studying, the construction of your theory and the design of your experiment may proceed any observations in the field. Hypothesis construction and testing is an important part of the process, as is integrating your results with those of others. Observation is central, of course, but it's not the only step in the process.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Exactly.
I also believe that early philosophers were instrumental in promoting proper, argument-based debate as a means to circulate new ideas (remember how Descartes' ideas were discussed throughout Europe and how he discussed counter-arguments in his Meditations). Philosophy probably had an early influence on the Catholic Church and for the better (it claims to support rationality). I also think it contributed greatly to the advent of western civilisation, of today's democracy and humanist values, and to the development of science in the 17th century. And that despite philosophers having said so many wrong things. The difference between the west and Imperial China may come in a big part from Confucius v. western philosophy.
Unfortunately, though, I don't think it would be possible to really prove that.
EB
Underseer
Contributor
No computers?
Without logic, most academic disciplines as we know it would not exist, and science would be completely impossible. Without logic, we would never have reached the electric lightbulb, much less computers.
Aside from logic, there is the pursuit of truth in general. Most academic disciplines are essentially branches of philosophy, so the modern and ancient worlds as we know it would be inconceivable. We would probably not have progressed much beyond the stone age.
DBT
Contributor
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?
Logic and reason is...logic and reason. A problem solved through the means of reason may have nothing to do ''philosophy'' - it may be just be mechanical problem that needs a practical solution. That is not Philosophy.
All of your examples have initial observations as the starting point. The planet Mars must first be observed before any ideas about ''Mars'' can be formed. Personality traits must first be observed before they are correlated with star signs (for whatever reason)...star formations must first be observed before the idea of 'star signs' is formed, etc, etc....
beero1000
Veteran Member
Most of those are well-known myths about the Pythagoreans and are repeated again and again. There is not much evidence to suggest they are actually true.
As I said, it was a common practice. Say a researcher is faced with some unusual results, and has a mass of measurements. He brings in a statistician to work out what is and isn't a genuinely statistically significant result as opposed to the result of noise. And he brings in a philosopher to have a look at his data, and make sure that the points he's seeing line up in a straight line actually mean something from the point of view of his original design assumptions, and to check the claims he's making on the back of it.
You only need to do this kind of thing if the relationship between your data and what you're trying to demonstrate is complicated.
Sure, and physicists don't need mathematicians, because all they're doing is running through a well-established statistical test, and adding up isn't really maths. If the problem is simple, you're right. If it's not, you're not.
Again, it's university policy. Whether you agree with their reasoning isn't really the point, simply that it is done and it does happen.
Only in the trivial sense that someone is aware of them. Following that reasoning gives us two sets of observations. You have awareness, which form part of all perception of the world and by extension all reasoning based on it, whether that's religion, science, philosophy or idle internet speculation. You need to know that X is there to speculate about X.
But that's not what makes science special. What makes science special is systematic observation and testing of hypotheses. That comes later. The systemic part is the experimental design, and the experiment is designed before the observations that are part of that experiment begins. The reason I make the distinction is to separate happening to see stuff from empirical testing. Science is made from the latter. The former is doubtless present, but isn't any more important in science than in any other human activity.
DBT
Contributor
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?
University policy or not, you haven't yet explained the practical role of a philosopher in a science lab.
Not really. All of our information about Mars, star formations, personalities, etc (to use your examples) , come from observation of these things. This is hardly 'trivial.'
Observation isn't merely ''happening to see stuff'' - ''observation'' must include designing, constructing and monitoring the progress of experiments. You can't do these things without being aware of your purpose and what you're doing.
DBT
Contributor
Scientists being so poorly trained at reasoning when it comes to their own field of scientific endevour, and their experiments and results?
You still haven't given any details or examples for a need for scientists to consult philosophers in the course of their work.
Steven Weinberg: “ no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers”
So, can you give an example of what you mean? I really don't know what you're referring to.
The reasoning can get complicated. If you're doing a neurological lesion experiment, for example, you might be tracking over 100 different kinds of measurement over several different experimental conditions. A statistician can sort out various measures of statistical significance, but it can get difficult to track what the actual logical significance is of a supposedly significant result, whether and to what extent any conclusions that are both valid and useful can be drawn from them.
I haven't argued that it's necessary. I've merely reported that it happens. Again, you're welcome to believe that it's silly and unnecessary, and I feel no obligation to try and convince you otherwise.
DBT
Contributor
But I'm asking for examples and reasons. I'm asking you to explain your case for the necessity of consulting philosophers on matters of science by giving at least one practical description of the practice within a University science department/lab. I'm not disputing that it does not happen. Again, to be clear, I'm asking you about the specifics of the practice and its frequency.