• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What useful stuff has philosophy accomplished for man-kind?

Achwienichtig said:
I my experience, philosophy is less of a subject area and more of a certain way of thinking. it is primarily about being honest with oneself and shedding one's own blindness. Insofar as philosophers are consulted for anything, I tend to think it is for their objectivity and mental acuity, and not for their expertise. Insofar as professional philosophers are not consulted, it is my hope that this is because the spirit of philosophy lives in others and not just in professional philosophers.

Scientist do not need professional philosophers. If scientist needed philosophers, this would suggest 1) that scientist need philosophy, and 2) that only professional philosophers can offer them philosophy. We can accept premise 1 without accepting premise 2.
Click to expand...

That sums it up nicely.
 
No Robots said:
Why are ordinary men opposed to philosophy? This is the answer. Whatever is beyond our perception and above our understanding we negate, we declare that it either does not exist or it is not worth considering. We negate this to relieve ourselves of an unbearable consciousness of incompetency and inferiority; this consciousness strikes at the essence of our being and is unbearable. To admit that there is a thing which exists and which is worth knowing, and yet not be able to know and understand it, is to admit that he is incompetent and inferior to other men who do know and understand this thing. Hence, he persuades himself that either the thing does not exist or that it is not worth knowing. Now, ordinary men have not yet developed to such degree of explicit reason to understand philosophy, to reflect philosophically on existence. Philosophy is the language of explicit reason. Since ordinary men cannot understand philosophy, they negate philosophy; they persuade themselves that philosophy is only a vain speculation, and it is not worth bothering about.--A true monistic philosophy, v. 1 / Harry Waton, p. 277-278.​
Click to expand...

Seconded!
 
Hasn't this been hashed out over and over? To me it's not that difficult:

It's not that scientists need philosophers. It's that scientists need philosophy.

This thread makes it look like scientists and philosophers are mutually exclusive clubs. There may be scientists who don't care for philosophy, but I think any rational human would (or should) grant that any scientist needs to know a bit about logic, reason, and especially, ethics.

I hate to keep saying this, but a scientist without the capacity to think creatively, to conceptualize, to use ALL the tools in her brainbox, and above all, to be an ethical person, is...

Betchya thought I was going to say 'dangerous' or 'evil', huh?

Nope. What I was going to say was: Non-existent.
 
barbos said:
Togo said:
barbos said:
All philosophical questions in physics originate deep in physics itself.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example?
Click to expand...
here are a few:
Do we live in a simulation?
Anthropic principle, what's up with that?
Many World Interpretation, what's up with that?
Click to expand...
Could you explain what it is that you see as philosophical in the question of simulation? Why and to what extent is that a philosophical question?
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
barbos said:
Togo said:
barbos said:
All philosophical questions in physics originate deep in physics itself.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example?
Click to expand...
here are a few:
Do we live in a simulation?
Anthropic principle, what's up with that?
Many World Interpretation, what's up with that?
Click to expand...
Could you explain what it is that you see as philosophical in the question of simulation? Why and to what extent is that a philosophical question?
EB
Click to expand...
It is philosophical because we have no way to answer it, not even hypothetical experiment. So it's not science and therefore philosophy and people (physicists in this case) do what philosophers do in such situation, they choose what to believe and go from there. The point here is the fact that these questions originate in physics and by physicists.
 
Once again, scientist consulting a philosopher about setting up an experiment is a lot like carpenter consulting a preacher about carpentering.
Carpenter maybe a devote Christian but he is not crazy.
And please, don't put ethics into philosophy.
 
This entire discussion is wrong from the start.
Philosophy is the mother of all rational endeavors.

Philosophy IS rational thought.

DBT should specify his criticism better.
 
Juma said:
This entire discussion is wrong from the start.
Philosophy is the mother of all rational endeavors.

Philosophy IS rational thought.

DBT should specify his criticism better.
Click to expand...
Any legitimate scientist is perfectly capable of rational thought on his own without help of professional philosopher.
 
Don't put ethics into philosophy? Ethics is a branch of philosophy.
 
Science, unlike other architects, builds not only castles in the air, but may construct separate habitable storeys of the building before laying the foundation stone.--Marx​
 
barbos said:
Juma said:
This entire discussion is wrong from the start.
Philosophy is the mother of all rational endeavors.

Philosophy IS rational thought.

DBT should specify his criticism better.
Click to expand...
Any legitimate scientist is perfectly capable of rational thought on his own without help of professional philosopher.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. I thought it was perfectly clear.
 
barbos said:
Speakpigeon said:
barbos said:
Do we live in a simulation?
Click to expand...
Could you explain what it is that you see as philosophical in the question of simulation? Why and to what extent is that a philosophical question?
Click to expand...
It is philosophical because we have no way to answer it, not even hypothetical experiment. So it's not science and therefore philosophy and people (physicists in this case) do what philosophers do in such situation, they choose what to believe and go from there. The point here is the fact that these questions originate in physics and by physicists.
Click to expand...
Me I think there is a perfectly cogent answer so it's not true there is no way to answer it. Second, the answer makes a distinction between two questions, one is a scientific one, with a potential scientific answer, which I'm quite sure scientists are already looking into, and the other is a philosophical one, with an analytical answer, which I'm quite sure philosophers have already addressed. I'm not saying that some scientists and possibly some philosophers haven't mixed up the two questions, that's a possibility, but in the end they should get it right. Obviously, this doesn't prove that science will ever find the response to the scientific question since it's an empirical matter it depends on practical things like the required technology, energy resources, even budget and what not but on principle there is a scientific question that can be addressed by scientists and there is in principle a scientific answer.
EB
 
Juma said:
Philosophy IS rational thought.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think I agree with that.

Juma said:
Philosophy is the mother of all rational endeavors.
Click to expand...
Philosophy is rational thought but rational thought isn't necessarily philosophical.

I think systematic rational thought without a clear prospect of any immediate practical application would be.


No, I can't prove it. :smile:
EB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom