Question --- Is Philosophy a artifical discipline ?

Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Question --- Is Philosophy a artifical discipline ?

I was reading about the mind,and then this question came to me . Please give me your point of view .  

Signature ? How ?


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:I was reading

Ken G. wrote:

I was reading about the mind,and then this question came to me . Please give me your point of view .  

Artificial in what manner?

For any discipline X, so it seems, and there is a philosophy of X, so it seems rather pervasive.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
UbuntuAnyone wrote:Articial in what manner ?

 Well,I was thinking along the line, that philosophical  thinking is really nothing more than common sense, its critical thinking.   PS- "in what manner" is not a point of view,it's a question.

Signature ? How ?


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote: Well,I was

Ken G. wrote:

 Well,I was thinking along the line, that philosophical  thinking is really nothing more than common sense, its critical thinking.   PS- "in what manner" is not a point of view,it's a question.

 

Some see philosophy as navel gazing....others live and die for it. I personally think it is foundation of all rational thought.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Some see

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

Some see philosophy as navel gazing....others live and die for it. I personally think it is foundation of all rational thought.

Can't it be both ways?

Some philosophy is the foundation for rational thought. (This is quite obvious, as rationality's second-greatest tool -- the epistemology of science -- is philosophy.) On the other hand, much philosophy is based on the ability of logic to express ideas that are not consistent with reality. While that too can be helpful, it often detracts from rational thought.

 

On an off-topic side note: love the new avatar. It's like the evil love-child of Linux and BSD.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Ken G.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Ken G. wrote:

 Well,I was thinking along the line, that philosophical  thinking is really nothing more than common sense, its critical thinking.   PS- "in what manner" is not a point of view,it's a question.

 

Some see philosophy as navel gazing....others live and die for it. I personally think it is foundation of all rational thought.

It certainly is not "foundation of all rational thought".

Rational thinking is the foundation of Philosophy, as a somewhat more systematic and concentrated approach to rational examination of, and speculation about, 'Life, the Universe, and Everything'.

Philosophy in turn lead to the formalizing and elaboration of essential tools of rational analysis, such as logic and math, which have now become disciplines in themselves.

Science also developed from 'Natural Philosophy', of course, and now subsumes the whole approach to elucidation, in so far as it is possible, the nature of the reality we appear to find ourselves occupying.

Philosophy of various other regimes of thought, such as Science, is useful in thinking about the modes of thought employed in the various regimes, and speculation about issues related to the particular domain, and stretching beyond the normal limits of the domain. Such philosophy can generate possible new ways to think about the subjects involved, which of course still need to be tested within the more formal domain.

'Pure' philosophy is now of more limited utility, mainly as a generator of new ideas, for testing within a more practical framework.

I think that scientific investigation is now a far more fertile source of new ideas and concepts,  since it is getting deeply into some fundamentals, such as the deep nature of matter and energy and thought and consciousness. 'Pure' reasoning is limited to recombinations of the finite set of intuitions that can be generated by our evolved brains, which have been thoroughly explored after millennia, at least in terms of broad concepts. This is shown by the very counter-intuitive nature of many new scientific discoveries, such as quantum theory and relativity.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
If we understand

If we understand 'artificial' in accord with its acceptation, then all disciplines are artificial. But if you mean (as you suggested) that philosophical thinking is common sense, I disagree. The following quote from Bertrand Russell (a philosopher with whom I frequently disagree) sums up the often antithetical nature of the results of philosophic study and the conclusions of common sense nicely:

"The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find...that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect."

Edejardin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:If we

edejardin wrote:
If we understand 'artificial' in accord with its acceptation, then all disciplines are artificial. But if you mean (as you suggested) that philosophical thinking is common sense, I disagree. The following quote from Bertrand Russell (a philosopher with whom I frequently disagree) sums up the often antithetical nature of the results of philosophic study and the conclusions of common sense nicely: "The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find...that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect."

I agree that 'artificial' seems not to be a very useful distinction to make, or to even apply to a domain of thought.

Bertrand Russell is definitely one of my favorite philosophers, along with David Hume and Daniel Dennett.

That is a very good quote, and I like that it backs up my assessment that this kind of open thinking, traditionally fostered by the best philosophical traditions, is extremely valuable, both at the personal level as a 'philosophy' of life, and as part of the mode of the best thinkers in science, where it is so necessary to come up with the 'wildest' hypotheses to explain the weirder results of observation and experiment, and then to devise some way to test the hypotheses.

I just think that the separate 'discipline' of Philosophy in a semi-formal sense has lost much relevance and usefulness these days.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"Bertrand Russell is

"Bertrand Russell is definitely one of my favorite philosophers, along with David Hume and Daniel Dennett."

Hume is, IMHO, to be ranked with Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Aquinas as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. There's no philosopher I disagree with more, but, in part because of that very fact, none that challenges me more. So I'm with you here -- Hume's certainly one of my favorites.

Russell is interesting to be sure, but difficult to get a handle on, primarily because there are so many Russells! We usually distinguish, with some difficulty, but in a way that makes a bit of sense, the early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus from the later Wittgenstein of the Investigations, but this sort of neat classification would be impossible to do with Russell: we'd need a giant, messy flow chart for that job! All in all, though, he was a wonderfully eclectic philosopher and an undeniably brilliant writer whose popular works have served, and will continue to serve, as excellent introductions to the study of philosophy.

"I just think that the separate 'discipline' of Philosophy in a semi-formal sense has lost much relevance and usefulness these days."

Which perhaps explains Dennett's appeal to you! I enjoy reading Dennett, and I can't deny that the man is simply brilliant -- scary smart, as it were -- but he's not a rigorous enough philosopher for me. His arguments tend to meander, as he moves from questions to stories to interesting scientific data to well thought out criticisms of opposing positions to -- well, one is often left wondering just where it all was supposed to lead to. But, then, this is just symptomatic of his quasi-scientific/philosophical approach to quasi-philosophical/scientific questions.

Now, I do think that contemporary philosophy is both relevant and useful. However, the field is so specialized that it's damn near impossible to keep track of the work that's being done outside your AOS or AOC, that I can understand why it seems irrelevant. But, as is usually the case, the more important insights will begin (indeed, have begun) to trickle down and infect the thought of the rest of us (cf. the contributions of 20th century analytic philosophy to a deep understanding of the distinctions that obtain among the fundamental methodological conceptions of a priori truth, logical consequence, logical truth, and necessary truth), whether we're aware of the source of those insights and the jargon professionals use to express them or not.

Edejardin


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Can't it

nigelTheBold wrote:

Can't it be both ways?

Some philosophy is the foundation for rational thought. (This is quite obvious, as rationality's second-greatest tool -- the epistemology of science -- is philosophy.) On the other hand, much philosophy is based on the ability of logic to express ideas that are not consistent with reality. While that too can be helpful, it often detracts from rational thought.

 

Sure. Philosophy permeates practically everything one does, so some of it is likely to be navel gazing and some of it quintessential to the most important aspects of our lives.

nigelTheBold wrote:

On an off-topic side note: love the new avatar. It's like the evil love-child of Linux and BSD.

The love child of Linux and BSD... HAH! The real question is which one is the mother and which one is the father?


 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Ironic, I suppose, that this

Ironic, I suppose, that your post is highly philosophical.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It certainly is not "foundation of all rational thought".

Rational thinking is the foundation of Philosophy, as a somewhat more systematic and concentrated approach to rational examination of, and speculation about, 'Life, the Universe, and Everything'.

Philosophy in turn lead to the formalizing and elaboration of essential tools of rational analysis, such as logic and math, which have now become disciplines in themselves.

There are philosophies that reject rational thinking. It is a philosophical statement to say that one should think rationally.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science also developed from 'Natural Philosophy', of course, and now subsumes the whole approach to elucidation, in so far as it is possible, the nature of the reality we appear to find ourselves occupying.

Philosophy of various other regimes of thought, such as Science, is useful in thinking about the modes of thought employed in the various regimes, and speculation about issues related to the particular domain, and stretching beyond the normal limits of the domain. Such philosophy can generate possible new ways to think about the subjects involved, which of course still need to be tested within the more formal domain.

This is, nevertheless, philosophy. Also it is fundamental, rather than consequential, to the scientific enterprise. That's why I think philosophy even precedes science .

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Pure' philosophy is now of more limited utility, mainly as a generator of new ideas, for testing within a more practical framework.

I think that scientific investigation is now a far more fertile source of new ideas and concepts,  since it is getting deeply into some fundamentals, such as the deep nature of matter and energy and thought and consciousness.

This justification for science is not scientific, but rather philosophical, namely pragmatism.

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Pure' reasoning is limited to recombinations of the finite set of intuitions that can be generated by our evolved brains, which have been thoroughly explored after millennia, at least in terms of broad concepts.

That's beside the point.This is like saying the car runs because it has a motor.

BobSpence1 wrote:

This is shown by the very counter-intuitive nature of many new scientific discoveries, such as quantum theory and relativity.

Even this is getting into "pure" philosophy, in that it is beginning to look at the metaphysical and epistemic implications of scienctific discovery. This does not seem very scientific though, unless of course you want to expand your philosophy of science to more than inductive modes of discovery. Any way you go, I think you end up doing philosophy...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:"Bertrand

edejardin wrote:
"Bertrand Russell is definitely one of my favorite philosophers, along with David Hume and Daniel Dennett." Hume is, IMHO, to be ranked with Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Aquinas as one of the greatest philosophers of all time.

I do not consider aquinas a philosopher; he was a theologian

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"I do not consider aquinas a

"I do not consider aquinas a philosopher; he was a theologian"

Those categories are not mutually exclusive. Aquinas was both a philosopher and a theologian. Indeed, that he was a philosopher of the highest calibre is demonstrated by the fact that he not only adopted much of Aristotle's work, *but substantially improved upon it in a number of ways*.

I'm curious, though: Why was Aquinas not a philosopher in your eyes?

Is it because he, say, believed in God first, and worked out his philosophy second? This is a common charge, but it fails for rather obvious reasons: it confuses what motivates an argument with the content of the argument itself. What does and doesn't count as philosophy is a complicated subject, but it manifestly cannot be decided with an appeal to a philosopher's motivations or pre-philosophical commitments. A properly philosophical argument is, well, a philosophical argument, regardless of the psychology of the person who constructs it.

Is it because he argued for the existence of a God? Well, then nearly every philosopher in the Western tradition must be 'demoted' to 'theologian.'

Is it because much of his work is in fact plainly theological? Well, Newton wrote more about theology than he did about science; does it follow that Newton was not a scientist, but a theologian?

These are the three main reasons I've seen presented by people who deny that Aquinas was a philosopher. Are there any others? (Incidentally, I can't think of an actual philosopher who would make that claim: indeed, Aquinas is almost universally recognized among philosophers, even those who profoundly disagree with him, for his philosophical rigour and philosophical genius.)

Edejardin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:<....

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

<.... >

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Pure' reasoning is limited to recombinations of the finite set of intuitions that can be generated by our evolved brains, which have been thoroughly explored after millennia, at least in terms of broad concepts.

That's beside the point.This is like saying the car runs because it has a motor.

BobSpence1 wrote:

This is shown by the very counter-intuitive nature of many new scientific discoveries, such as quantum theory and relativity.

Even this is getting into "pure" philosophy, in that it is beginning to look at the metaphysical and epistemic implications of scienctific discovery. This does not seem very scientific though, unless of course you want to expand your philosophy of science to more than inductive modes of discovery. Any way you go, I think you end up doing philosophy...

I certainly agree that 'Philosophy' is often applied in that sense.

The thing is, in applying the word so broadly, you cannot really refer to it as a discipline, you have made the term all but meaningless. You are just referring to a certain category of discourse, not a 'discipline'.

This is the fallacy of conflation, mixing distinct interprations/usages of the same term.

I was treating it in the more restricted sense implied by the use of word 'discipline' in the OP.

I fully agree, and I think I at least implied, that science and logic developed from philosophy. But I would see the relation between Philosophy and Science a bit like that between Alchemy and Chemistry. It's like saying that the car is useless once it has run out of gas.

My comment on the limitations of 'pure' reasoning, by which I intended to encompass philosophy, as distinct from empirical discourse, ie, the essence of Science, is that really new insights are now far more likely to come from Science than Philosophy.

Metaphysics is bullcrap, worse than useless. Just my opinion, of course....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
I see philosophy as more of

I see philosophy as more of an umbrella term for scientific thought. We wouldn't be able to do science without underling epistemological ideas. I suppose I just define philosophy differently than most people. I see philosophy as how we discover things and science as those actual discoveries. Its more a semantic distinction.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I cite this thread thusfar

I cite this thread thusfar as a definition for philosophy and assert that it is as real as necessary to convey its meaning.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
 edejardin wrote:"The man

 

edejardin wrote:

"The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected."

 

This statement is a dangerous stick when wielded by a theist. Religions and philosophies are not the same things and the variance is most important in the way they address the subjects they consider. Religious myths are older than modern scientific enquiry and you don't have to scuffle too far through the dogma of most faiths to find them welded to mysticism and improbable revelations and events that cannot be verified using logical scientific method. Philosophy is a key vehicle, I grant you, but when used to prop up beliefs based on 'truths' that are set free of scientific enquiry - what then?

My personal experiences of religion verify an observation I read somewhere that (despite the relative youth of the current big 3 faiths) religious thought is pre-rational thought. I am also disposed to think that there are knowable fundamentals that operate in the universe regardless of human philosophizing and rather than considering that these fundamentals make the world 'finite and obvious' I think of them as the greatest truths of all.

Of course EJ, I know I'm debating a point you were not making so please consider this a private wanking session with no observation required...

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I certainly

BobSpence1 wrote:

I certainly agree that 'Philosophy' is often applied in that sense.

The thing is, in applying the word so broadly, you cannot really refer to it as a discipline, you have made the term all but meaningless. You are just referring to a certain category of discourse, not a 'discipline'.

This is the fallacy of conflation, mixing distinct interprations/usages of the same term.

I was treating it in the more restricted sense implied by the use of word 'discipline' in the OP.

It's only fallacious if there is something to conflate. One of the difficulties with philosophy is that there is not a precise definition of the word. In short, I think this is due to what I was getting at earlier, which has to do with the fundamental nature of philosophy. Philosophy is generally defined using working definitions. In treating it like a "discipline" in and of itself, one would exclude things that could otherwise be philosophy. When I asked for clarity from the OP, I got a nebulus response, to I took the liberty to apply as I did.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I fully agree, and I think I at least implied, that science and logic developed from philosophy. But I would see the relation between Philosophy and Science a bit like that between Alchemy and Chemistry. It's like saying that the car is useless once it has run out of gas.

My comment on the limitations of 'pure' reasoning, by which I intended to encompass philosophy, as distinct from empirical discourse, ie, the essence of Science, is that really new insights are now far more likely to come from Science than Philosophy.

I generally consider science a subset of epistemology--a particular mode of epistemic evaluation. Philosophy is not strictly about finding new discoveries, as it also attempts to understand what one already knows. If we want to talk about conflation, there is a lot of crap people call, "science" which is not science at all, but nonscientific interpretation of scientific discovery or nonscientific assertions that masquerade as science.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Metaphysics is bullcrap, worse than useless. Just my opinion, of course....

At least I can burn bullcrap to stay warm. Metaphysics is bullcrap in what sense?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
edejardinwrote:Bertrand Russell is one of my favorite phil --

 --osophers along with David Hume ans Daniel Dennett.Yeah ! They're great thinkers,but what about  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein -- in my opinion ,one of the most important Philosophers . 

Signature ? How ?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:I see

Stosis wrote:

I see philosophy as more of an umbrella term for scientific thought. We wouldn't be able to do science without underling epistemological ideas. I suppose I just define philosophy differently than most people. I see philosophy as how we discover things and science as those actual discoveries. Its more a semantic distinction.

That can't be correct because under that umbrella are a lot of ideas which are not remotely scientific. Philosophy wouldn't work if was under the same constraints as Science. Apart from the use of logic, there is little in common - maybe you can map philosophy to the hypothesis forming stage of the scientific process.

Science does not rely in any way on any formal epistemological ideas - those epistemological ideas simply describe certain basic modes of thought. Having some label for a particular model of reasoning does not mean that that reasoning depends in any way on the 'ideas' which lead to that label. IOW epistemology describes the way we acquire and process different forms of knowledge. I don't think it actually gives us much useful insight into improving those processes.

If you are going to label almost all forms of even somewhat disciplined reasoning 'philosophy', this reduces the term to simply describing a particular category of discussion and thought.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I certainly agree that 'Philosophy' is often applied in that sense.

The thing is, in applying the word so broadly, you cannot really refer to it as a discipline, you have made the term all but meaningless. You are just referring to a certain category of discourse, not a 'discipline'.

This is the fallacy of conflation, mixing distinct interprations/usages of the same term.

I was treating it in the more restricted sense implied by the use of word 'discipline' in the OP.

It's only fallacious if there is something to conflate. One of the difficulties with philosophy is that there is not a precise definition of the word. In short, I think this is due to what I was getting at earlier, which has to do with the fundamental nature of philosophy. Philosophy is generally defined using working definitions. In treating it like a "discipline" in and of itself, one would exclude things that could otherwise be philosophy. When I asked for clarity from the OP, I got a nebulus response, to I took the liberty to apply as I did.

You are conflating the narrow 'discipline' sense and very broad and fuzzy use of the term.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I fully agree, and I think I at least implied, that science and logic developed from philosophy. But I would see the relation between Philosophy and Science a bit like that between Alchemy and Chemistry. It's like saying that the car is useless once it has run out of gas.

My comment on the limitations of 'pure' reasoning, by which I intended to encompass philosophy, as distinct from empirical discourse, ie, the essence of Science, is that really new insights are now far more likely to come from Science than Philosophy.

I generally consider science a subset of epistemology--a particular mode of epistemic evaluation. Philosophy is not strictly about finding new discoveries, as it also attempts to understand what one already knows. If we want to talk about conflation, there is a lot of crap people call, "science" which is not science at all, but nonscientific interpretation of scientific discovery or nonscientific assertions that masquerade as science.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Metaphysics is bullcrap, worse than useless. Just my opinion, of course....

At least I can burn bullcrap to stay warm. Metaphysics is bullcrap in what sense?

I apologise, you are right, bullcrap is of some use - metaphysics is  worse that useless, as it continue to keep alive modes of thought which are way past there use-by date.

I would contend that most of what is traditionally categorized as 'Philosophy' is masquerading as knowledge and understanding, whereas all it is doing is inventing clever-sounding labels for ill-defined concepts, or ideas precisely defined in terms of poorly justified assumptions, reworked in 'clever' but ultimately pointless ways.

What in metaphysics do you find useful in understanding the world (in the broadest sense)?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You are

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are conflating the narrow 'discipline' sense and very broad and fuzzy use of the term.

I'm not sure how I'm conflating then. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by the "narrow discipline". I am having a hard time thinking of anything that does not invoke philosophy in some way, shape, form, or fashion.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I apologise, you are right, bullcrap is of some use - metaphysics is  worse that useless, as it continue to keep alive modes of thought which are way past there use-by date.

I would contend that most of what is traditionally categorized as 'Philosophy' is masquerading as knowledge and understanding, whereas all it is doing is inventing clever-sounding labels for ill-defined concepts, or ideas precisely defined in terms of poorly justified assumptions, reworked in 'clever' but ultimately pointless ways.

What in metaphysics do you find useful in understanding the world (in the broadest sense)?

I asked my former to try and better understand what you think metaphysics entails. In my understanding metaphysics, it covers broadly speaking, "what is", and more specifically reality, existence, space, time, causality, and modalities.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are conflating the narrow 'discipline' sense and very broad and fuzzy use of the term.

I'm not sure how I'm conflating then. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by the "narrow discipline". I am having a hard time thinking of anything that does not invoke philosophy in some way, shape, form, or fashion.

OK so you are not conflating, if you only think of Philosophy in broad, ill-defined sense, I was 'conflating' your comments with some of the other posts here. The thing is, in this broad version, it has been diffused to a much weaker and less significant category of thought, AFAICS. It becomes little more than a label for certain kinds of thinking, which in themselves are fundamentally important, but just identifying them as 'philosophy' contributes little to the discourse those thoughts are part of.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I apologise, you are right, bullcrap is of some use - metaphysics is  worse that useless, as it continue to keep alive modes of thought which are way past there use-by date.

I would contend that most of what is traditionally categorized as 'Philosophy' is masquerading as knowledge and understanding, whereas all it is doing is inventing clever-sounding labels for ill-defined concepts, or ideas precisely defined in terms of poorly justified assumptions, reworked in 'clever' but ultimately pointless ways.

What in metaphysics do you find useful in understanding the world (in the broadest sense)?

I asked my former to try and better understand what you think metaphysics entails. In my understanding metaphysics, it covers broadly speaking, "what is", and more specifically reality, existence, space, time, causality, and modalities.

I read up a some more on the origins of metaphysics and what it is aimed at studying, and it confirmed my general impression that, of that list, what is not addressed in a far more comprehensive and rigorous manner by Science, is not useful in any real sense to understanding. 

Metaphysics is an 'unnecessary', obsolete discipline, as with much of Greek thought from which it originated. I still acknowledge that the golden age of Greek Philosophy was an very important stage in the progress of human understanding, but we have moved on...

People who have spent way to much time in Philosophy and Metaphysics as compared to Science seem to have a very limited appreciation of just how Science has subsumed much of these earlier disciplines. The fact that it originated from them does not give them any claim to ontological precedence, any more than Alchemy has any remaining status with respect to Chemistry which it gave rise to. 

Philosophy in the broad sense encompasses Science only in the sense that it just refers to a certain category of discourse - it refers to things which Science depends on in the same sense that the grammar and syntax of language does.

I read books on Philosophy earlier in my life, but have been following the progress of Science and those associated discussions and speculations on the fringes of science, which are arguably 'philosophy', for a long time now.

As I see it, as we gain footholds of real, ie evidence-based, understanding of things like the origin and probable fate of the Universe, and life and mind, the areas of knowledge which are left for the older approaches, such as metaphysics, to at least seem to be addressing usefully, have retreated to the periphery of serious discourse.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:OK so you

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK so you are not conflating, if you only think of Philosophy in broad, ill-defined sense, I was 'conflating' your comments with some of the other posts here. The thing is, in this broad version, it has been diffused to a much weaker and less significant category of thought, AFAICS. It becomes little more than a label for certain kinds of thinking, which in themselves are fundamentally important, but just identifying them as 'philosophy' contributes little to the discourse those thoughts are part of.

Ill-defined, perhaps. But as I mentioned is is not because philosophy lacks a definition, but that the fundamental nature of it makes it such that it does not fit into any given category, but perhaps that other categories fit into it making it difficult to define. Epistemology is one of these, and science into this category.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I read up a some more on the origins of metaphysics and what it is aimed at studying, and it confirmed my general impression that, of that list, what is not addressed in a far more comprehensive and rigorous manner by Science, is not useful in any real sense to understanding. 

Metaphysics is an 'unnecessary', obsolete discipline, as with much of Greek thought from which it originated. I still acknowledge that the golden age of Greek Philosophy was an very important stage in the progress of human understanding, but we have moved on...

People who have spent way to much time in Philosophy and Metaphysics as compared to Science seem to have a very limited appreciation of just how Science has subsumed much of these earlier disciplines. The fact that it originated from them does not give them any claim to ontological precedence, any more than Alchemy has any remaining status with respect to Chemistry which it gave rise to.

Where you and I differ, I think, is how far we extend science. My propensity is to restrict science to epistemology, which I believe is the proper place for it. Science informs and discovers, both such things are epistemic.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Philosophy in the broad sense encompasses Science only in the sense that it just refers to a certain category of discourse - it refers to things which Science depends on in the same sense that the grammar and syntax of language does.

I read books on Philosophy earlier in my life, but have been following the progress of Science and those associated discussions and speculations on the fringes of science, which are arguably 'philosophy', for a long time now.

As I mentioned before, the truth something discovers are only as good as the assumptions it makes, and for science, these assumptions are the assumptions made by the philosophy of science. Science, generally speaking assumes empirical induction and falsification. There are some that would include more things into science. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

As I see it, as we gain footholds of real, ie evidence-based, understanding of things like the origin and probable fate of the Universe, and life and mind, the areas of knowledge which are left for the older approaches, such as metaphysics, to at least seem to be addressing usefully, have retreated to the periphery of serious discourse.

 

One could argue conversely, in that science has opened up a whole new level of understanding, that actually invigorates, rather then relegates metaphysics. One such physicist that has taken up the metaphysical implications of physics is Frank Tipler from Tulane, among others. But this again is not science at all.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
UbuntuAnyone wrote:metaphsyics ....

I'm not a fan of metaphysics,but as Albert Einstein said "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.It is the source of all true art and science.He to whom this emotion is a stranger,who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe,is as good as dead.his eyes are closed. You and Bob Spence 1 had a very good argument over this topic - Philosophy 

Signature ? How ?


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:I'm not a fan

Ken G. wrote:

I'm not a fan of metaphysics,but as Albert Einstein said "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.It is the source of all true art and science.He to whom this emotion is a stranger,who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe,is as good as dead.his eyes are closed. You and Bob Spence 1 had a very good argument over this topic - Philosophy 

I don't suppose I relegate metaphysics to the realm of mystery, as I think metaphysics ponders things that are very apparent. When people hear the word "metaphysics" they think ancient Greek philosophers, astrologers, and crystal ball gazers, but I fear that this may be a charciture of the topic.In my understanding of the subject, even the ones who purportedly hate it, in someway do metaphysics, as I think it is unavoidable.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK so you are not conflating, if you only think of Philosophy in broad, ill-defined sense, I was 'conflating' your comments with some of the other posts here. The thing is, in this broad version, it has been diffused to a much weaker and less significant category of thought, AFAICS. It becomes little more than a label for certain kinds of thinking, which in themselves are fundamentally important, but just identifying them as 'philosophy' contributes little to the discourse those thoughts are part of.

Ill-defined, perhaps. But as I mentioned is is not because philosophy lacks a definition, but that the fundamental nature of it makes it such that it does not fit into any given category, but perhaps that other categories fit into it making it difficult to define. Epistemology is one of these, and science into this category.

Science is not Epistemology, or a sub-category of it. Epistemology is the study of what justifies classifying a belief as 'knowledge', and thus is interested in the core empirical/inductive process of scientific investigation, but Science in no way depends on Epistemology for its working. It is irrelevant to scientists, or should be, that some people agonize over such issues.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I read up a some more on the origins of metaphysics and what it is aimed at studying, and it confirmed my general impression that, of that list, what is not addressed in a far more comprehensive and rigorous manner by Science, is not useful in any real sense to understanding. 

Metaphysics is an 'unnecessary', obsolete discipline, as with much of Greek thought from which it originated. I still acknowledge that the golden age of Greek Philosophy was an very important stage in the progress of human understanding, but we have moved on...

People who have spent way to much time in Philosophy and Metaphysics as compared to Science seem to have a very limited appreciation of just how Science has subsumed much of these earlier disciplines. The fact that it originated from them does not give them any claim to ontological precedence, any more than Alchemy has any remaining status with respect to Chemistry which it gave rise to.

Where you and I differ, I think, is how far we extend science. My propensity is to restrict science to epistemology, which I believe is the proper place for it. Science informs and discovers, both such things are epistemic.

Again, Science is not Epistemology.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Philosophy in the broad sense encompasses Science only in the sense that it just refers to a certain category of discourse - it refers to things which Science depends on in the same sense that the grammar and syntax of language does.

I read books on Philosophy earlier in my life, but have been following the progress of Science and those associated discussions and speculations on the fringes of science, which are arguably 'philosophy', for a long time now.

As I mentioned before, the truth something discovers are only as good as the assumptions it makes, and for science, these assumptions are the assumptions made by the philosophy of science. Science, generally speaking assumes empirical induction and falsification. There are some that would include more things into science. 

I certainly agree with this, and this is a real problem for metaphysics, far more than for Science, which makes the minimum initial assumptions, mainly that evidence and induction are the key paths to useful understanding and insight about what we perceive as external reality.

Curious as to what other things some would add.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

As I see it, as we gain footholds of real, ie evidence-based, understanding of things like the origin and probable fate of the Universe, and life and mind, the areas of knowledge which are left for the older approaches, such as metaphysics, to at least seem to be addressing usefully, have retreated to the periphery of serious discourse.

 

One could argue conversely, in that science has opened up a whole new level of understanding, that actually invigorates, rather then relegates metaphysics. One such physicist that has taken up the metaphysical implications of physics is Frank Tipler from Tulane, among others. But this again is not science at all.

 

I seriously disagree with the ideas of Tipler in this area, as you may not be surprised to know.

It may well 'invigorate' metaphysics. I don't give a flying f**k about metaphysics. I do deplore effort wasted on totally pointless speculation, which is how I see such 'disciplines'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:I'm not a fan

Ken G. wrote:

I'm not a fan of metaphysics,but as Albert Einstein said "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.It is the source of all true art and science.He to whom this emotion is a stranger,who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe,is as good as dead.his eyes are closed. You and Bob Spence 1 had a very good argument over this topic - Philosophy 

I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Einstein there. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Science is

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science is not Epistemology, or a sub-category of it. Epistemology is the study of what justifies classifying a belief as 'knowledge', and thus is interested in the core empirical/inductive process of scientific investigation, but Science in no way depends on Epistemology for its working. It is irrelevant to scientists, or should be, that some people agonize over such issues.

Empirical induction is an epistemic mode of justification, among others, and why I think it is a subset of a larger epistemology. What about science would make it its own category?

BobSpence1 wrote:

I certainly agree with this, and this is a real problem for metaphysics, far more than for Science, which makes the minimum initial assumptions, mainly that evidence and induction are the key paths to useful understanding and insight about what we perceive as external reality.

Curious as to what other things some would add.

I seriously disagree with the ideas of Tipler in this area, as you may not be surprised to know.

Tipler, for example, included religious ideas in some of his books such as immortality and the trinity seemingly calling it science when it is not.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It may well 'invigorate' metaphysics. I don't give a flying f**k about metaphysics. I do deplore effort wasted on totally pointless speculation, which is how I see such 'disciplines'.

 

Obviously, but not everyone shares your views on the subject. You seem to think so on pragmatic grounds, which is fine, but itself is not scientific and also seems to be a rather weak mode of justifying anything.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:not everyone shares your views

   Hi ! I was just wondering what you think of "Thomas Kuhn's book-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ".  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions   P.S.  I do think that you relegated metaphysics to the mysterious. 

Signature ? How ?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science is not Epistemology, or a sub-category of it. Epistemology is the study of what justifies classifying a belief as 'knowledge', and thus is interested in the core empirical/inductive process of scientific investigation, but Science in no way depends on Epistemology for its working. It is irrelevant to scientists, or should be, that some people agonize over such issues.

Empirical induction is an epistemic mode of justification, among others, and why I think it is a subset of a larger epistemology. What about science would make it its own category?

One can assign categories in various different ways, just as there are  many different approaches to trying to gain insight and understanding. There is no one 'correct' way, some may 'work' better than others in different contexts, and for people of different mind sets.

Science has its own set of assumptions and methods, which will inevitably overlap to some degree with other 'disciplines'. Some no doubt originated in other and earlier disciplines, and those disciplines will in turn 'borrow back' some of the refinements of science, to 'invigorate' them...

The reality of this back and forth is far too complex to support some tidy classification and categorization.

I think you are spending way too much time trying to identify the hierarchy of disciplines and which is dependent or part of another. I really think that is all irrelevant to the practice of the disciplines themselves, whatever value it may have in tracing the 'History of Thought'.

Empirical induction simply does not need theoretical justification to be applied very usefully, that is way over-thinking the whole thing, and ultimately futile, just as it ultimately impossible to logically justify the validity of logic itself.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I certainly agree with this, and this is a real problem for metaphysics, far more than for Science, which makes the minimum initial assumptions, mainly that evidence and induction are the key paths to useful understanding and insight about what we perceive as external reality.

Curious as to what other things some would add.

I seriously disagree with the ideas of Tipler in this area, as you may not be surprised to know.

Tipler, for example, included religious ideas in some of his books such as immortality and the trinity seemingly calling it science when it is not.

Precisely, which is why I disagree with him, and agree that his ideas should not be considered part of Science, and you seem to agree, so why bring it up?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It may well 'invigorate' metaphysics. I don't give a flying f**k about metaphysics. I do deplore effort wasted on totally pointless speculation, which is how I see such 'disciplines'.

 

Obviously, but not everyone shares your views on the subject. You seem to think so on pragmatic grounds, which is fine, but itself is not scientific and also seems to be a rather weak mode of justifying anything.

The fact that "not everyone shares [my] views" is a very weak argument against them.

As I said you are welcome to your ideas, I just want to let you know I think they have no special validity in categorizing the different streams of human reasoning and speculation.

My view of Metaphysics is based on what I see as its ultimate sterility in generating real insights, it being mired in out-moded models of thought and reality, which is all the justification I need to ignore it.

Science is pragmatic... 

You find your way of thinking about these things 'works' for you, fine.

I obviously prefer my approach, which has developed after a lot of time spent reading about and thinking on the nature of 'Life, the Universe, and Everything', initiaily including a significant amount of Philosophy, but more and more on Science.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:   Hi ! I was

Ken G. wrote:

   Hi ! I was just wondering what you think of "Thomas Kuhn's book-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ".  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions   P.S.  I do think that you relegated metaphysics to the mysterious. 

 

Never read it, but per the synopsis on Wikipedia, it does not really seem to talk about the relationship of one scientific paradigm to another. But I fail to see how this relates metaphysics.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote: I fail to see how this relates metaphysics

It relates to concepts and the history of science that's all,no great woof.

Signature ? How ?


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:One can

BobSpence1 wrote:

One can assign categories in various different ways, just as there are  many different approaches to trying to gain insight and understanding. There is no one 'correct' way, some may 'work' better than others in different contexts, and for people of different mind sets.

Science has its own set of assumptions and methods, which will inevitably overlap to some degree with other 'disciplines'. Some no doubt originated in other and earlier disciplines, and those disciplines will in turn 'borrow back' some of the refinements of science, to 'invigorate' them...

The reality of this back and forth is far too complex to support some tidy classification and categorization.

I think you are spending way too much time trying to identify the hierarchy of disciplines and which is dependent or part of another. I really think that is all irrelevant to the practice of the disciplines themselves, whatever value it may have in tracing the 'History of Thought'.

Precisely, which is why science, in and of itself is not something that I think stands apart, but at the same time, what drives science categorically fits into epistemology. Epistemology is anything but a neat, tidy package, but rather board. As you pointed out, one can assign such things to many categories, but in any case, one assigns to epistemic categories. To do otherwise would be a categorical error.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Empirical induction simply does not need theoretical justification to be applied very usefully, that is way over-thinking the whole thing, and ultimately futile, just as it ultimately impossible to logically justify the validity of logic itself.

But the entire justification for it, "to be applied very usefully" is pragmatism, which is no less a theoretical and nonscientific justification for it.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Precisely, which is why I disagree with him, and agree that his ideas should not be considered part of Science, and you seem to agree, so why bring it up?

I brought it up to illustrate the issue of confusing science with things that are not science, such as metaphysics. This is a categorical distinction as I think science, being a particular form of epistemology, should remain separate from metaphysics.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The fact that "not everyone shares [my] views" is a very weak argument against them.

As I said you are welcome to your ideas, I just want to let you know I think they have no special validity in categorizing the different streams of human reasoning and speculation.

I said this because the insistence that science is not epistemology, but rather something else. It was not an argument for (or against) it, showing the philosophical nature of what we are talking about. You seem to be put out with such philosophical discussions as they are not "useful", but this judgment is no less philosophical.

BobSpence1 wrote:

My view of Metaphysics is based on what I see as its ultimate sterility in generating real insights, it being mired in out-moded models of thought and reality, which is all the justification I need to ignore it.

But metaphysics is the study of "reality" and when one makes such statements, he or she is making metaphysical statements. Oftentimes I get the impression that those who have distaste for metaphysics see it as some outdated esoteric nonsense, when it really isn't that at all. You may not care, but in any case, a good book on the subject I found is by E.J. Rowe from Durham University is A Survey of Metaphysics . The book talks about many things you might be interested in, (space, time, relativity, mathematics, uncertainty principle, etc.) among other things. I'm not suggesting you read it, but you can peruse the table of content on Amazon to see what all contemporary metaphysics talks about.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science is pragmatic...

You find your way of thinking about these things 'works' for you, fine.

Science is pragmatic, in that it is useful, and I'm not contesting that, but I think it is a bad reason to not delve in other areas. I like to study science as much as I like to study metaphysics too.
 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
As I said, if you find it

As I said, if you find it Metaphysics interesting, fine. I don't.

Science is the study of reality, Metaphysics is the study of ideas about reality, how we think about things. It will have some overlap there with cognitive science and psychology.

Science is not Epistemology. It has an overlap with Epistemology when evaluating different forms of checking and verifying results and theories.

These classifications of 'disciplines' give a false impression of clear distinctions which simply do not exist. Some central ideas will clearly be distinct, but they often overlap in many ways.

Whenever you label some incidental comment as 'philosophical', that simply demonstrates that Philosophy, at least in that sense, is ultimately a truly 'Trivial Pursuit'. It is conveying no useful or interesting information, at least to me. Insofar as it is true, it is describing the bleeding obvious.

It is not the usefulness of Science that stops me delving into areas like Metaphysics, it is the relative uselessness of those other areas which I now perceive whenever I look into them. That is a very good reason, at least to me, and that is the only basis I can honestly use. This is not to say I ignore the idea that my judgement may be faulty, just that in assessing this I value insights from cognitive science and psychology, based on actual empirical investigation of the way the mind/brain works, vastly more than Metaphysics.

Douglas Hofstadter is very interesting in this area. If you haven't already read 'Gödel, Escher, Bach', you really should. He frequently employs arguments and examples based on computer programming. I was drawn into serious playing with Common Lisp by some of his discussions. I have also read 'The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul', co-edited with Daniel Dennett. They are great examples of the sort of discourse which has deeply fascinated me for a long time. They may well have some overlap with aspects of interest to 'modern' Metaphysics, but I much prefer approaching these ideas from their direction than from the PoV of Metaphysics.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Science is

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science is the study of reality, Metaphysics is the study of ideas about reality, how we think about things. It will have some overlap there with cognitive science and psychology.

These classifications of 'disciplines' give a false impression of clear distinctions which simply do not exist. Some central ideas will clearly be distin

If I ask you, "what is reality?" You would not be able to answer this scientifically, per se. Because any sort of formulation about the nature of reality, is nothing short of a metaphysical assertion. Science, then, inform one about that assertion, which is why I think it is epistemology.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It has an overlap with Epistemology when evaluating different forms of checking and verifying results and theories.ct, but they often overlap in many ways.

In your view, what part of science then, does not categorically fit into epistemology?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Whenever you label some incidental comment as 'philosophical', that simply demonstrates that Philosophy, at least in that sense, is ultimately a truly 'Trivial Pursuit'. It is conveying no useful or interesting information, at least to me. Insofar as it is true, it is describing the bleeding obvious.

If one wanted to justify philosophy pragmatically, then one could do so by tracing historically the number of arts and sciences that started in philosophy. Many of these trivial pursuits produced something meaningfully. But that aside, my main point is that philosophy is what is primary. Most people would assume skip passed this, and delve right into the practical end of whatever the art or science may be.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is not the usefulness of Science that stops me delving into areas like Metaphysics, it is the relative uselessness of those other areas which I now perceive whenever I look into them. That is a very good reason, at least to me, and that is the only basis I can honestly use. This is not to say I ignore the idea that my judgement may be faulty, just that in assessing this I value insights from cognitive science and psychology, based on actual empirical investigation of the way the mind/brain works, vastly more than Metaphysics.

Douglas Hofstadter is very interesting in this area. If you haven't already read 'Gödel, Escher, Bach', you really should. He frequently employs arguments and examples based on computer programming. I was drawn into serious playing with Common Lisp by some of his discussions. I have also read 'The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul', co-edited with Daniel Dennett. They are great examples of the sort of discourse which has deeply fascinated me for a long time. They may well have some overlap with aspects of interest to 'modern' Metaphysics, but I much prefer approaching these ideas from their direction than from the PoV of Metaphysics.

Categorically, what do you place into metaphysics then? Because insofar as I can tell, we may as well be two ships passing in the night.

I'll look into Douglas Hofstadter, but my experience with AI has been more on the applications side rather than the theoretical side as I've worked with Lisp and and worked robotics on a couple of occasions.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

 

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science is the study of reality, Metaphysics is the study of ideas about reality, how we think about things. It will have some overlap there with cognitive science and psychology.

These classifications of 'disciplines' give a false impression of clear distinctions which simply do not exist. Some central ideas will clearly be distin

If I ask you, "what is reality?" You would not be able to answer this scientifically, per se. Because any sort of formulation about the nature of reality, is nothing short of a metaphysical assertion. Science, then, inform one about that assertion, which is why I think it is epistemology.

From The New Oxford American Dictionary:

"Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion".

Science is NOT epistemology, it is about gaining knowledge about the empirical 'world'.

There is some study of the validity of its own methods, but this is more properly categorized as the Philosophy of Science, which could be described as Epistemology.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It has an overlap with Epistemology when evaluating different forms of checking and verifying results and theories.ct, but they often overlap in many ways.

In your view, what part of science then, does not categorically fit into epistemology?

As I think about it now, I would say all of it. As I said above, what you are thinking of is properly part of the Philosophy of Science.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Whenever you label some incidental comment as 'philosophical', that simply demonstrates that Philosophy, at least in that sense, is ultimately a truly 'Trivial Pursuit'. It is conveying no useful or interesting information, at least to me. Insofar as it is true, it is describing the bleeding obvious.

If one wanted to justify philosophy pragmatically, then one could do so by tracing historically the number of arts and sciences that started in philosophy. Many of these trivial pursuits produced something meaningfully. But that aside, my main point is that philosophy is what is primary. Most people would assume skip passed this, and delve right into the practical end of whatever the art or science may be.

That is not a pragmatic justification of Philosophy as a valid current discipline. I have many times acknowledged that Science, Logic. Math, etc. historically derived from Philosophy.

That argument could be used to justify Alchemy.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is not the usefulness of Science that stops me delving into areas like Metaphysics, it is the relativeuselessness of those other areas which I now perceive whenever I look into them. That is a very good reason, at least to me, and that is the only basis I can honestly use. This is not to say I ignore the idea that my judgement may be faulty, just that in assessing this I value insights from cognitive science and psychology, based on actual empirical investigation of the way the mind/brain works, vastly more than Metaphysics.

Douglas Hofstadter is very interesting in this area. If you haven't already read 'Gödel, Escher, Bach', you really should. He frequently employs arguments and examples based on computer programming. I was drawn into serious playing with Common Lisp by some of his discussions. I have also read 'The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul', co-edited with Daniel Dennett. They are great examples of the sort of discourse which has deeply fascinated me for a long time. They may well have some overlap with aspects of interest to 'modern' Metaphysics, but I much prefer approaching these ideas from their direction than from the PoV of Metaphysics.

Categorically, what do you place into metaphysics then? Because insofar as I can tell, we may as well be two ships passing in the night.

I'll look into Douglas Hofstadter, but my experience with AI has been more on the applications side rather than the theoretical side as I've worked with Lisp and and worked robotics on a couple of occasions.

That ships analogy would appear to be true, unfortunately. I would describe Metaphysics as an outmoded series of speculations on the nature of reality.

If it empirically tested its ideas, it would be Science, if it doesn't, it can only be speculation, with no way of justifying any of its ideas as reaching the level of 'knowledge'.

I think it falls between two stools, with neither the empirical and results-based justification that Science can claim, nor the rigorous, deductive elaboration of the implications of elementary axioms, which map easily to fundamental real-world states, which Logic and Mathematics provide.

I have already strongly hinted I find your obsession with categorization as a distraction from seeking 'real' knowledge and insight. There is much discussion on the fringes of Science and the Philosophy of Science which I think covers most of what traditional Metaphysics addresses. You could conceivably classify that as contemporary Metaphysics, but it is mostly a different and updated approach, so I think it should not be tarred with that brush, even if it shares some concepts.

Hofstadter is not primarily into AI, that is an assumption on your part, altho I think he touches on it, especially in 'The Mind's Eye'. However in 'Gödel, Escher, Bach', he is addressing much wider topics.

From the Wikepedia article on this book:

Quote:

On its surface, GEB examines logician Kurt Gödel, artist M. C. Escher and composer Johann Sebastian Bach, discussing common themes in their work and lives. At a deeper level, the book is a detailed and subtle exposition of concepts fundamental to mathematics, symmetry, and intelligence.

Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself.

In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in a colony of ants.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:From The

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

From The New Oxford American Dictionary:

"Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion".

Science is NOT epistemology, it is about gaining knowledge about the empirical 'world'.

There is some study of the validity of its own methods, but this is more properly categorized as the Philosophy of Science, which could be described as Epistemology.

As I think about it now, I would say all of it. As I said above, what you are thinking of is properly part of the Philosophy of Science.



I think the difference is that you are treating epistemology as a particular discipline, and what I'm talking about is all sorts of epistemic modes of justification. I could say, "Science  is the investigation of what distinguishes justified true belief (a.k.a knowledge) from opinion about the empirical 'world'", and would then be a more specific form of epistemology, principally concerned with empirical induction. Philosophy of science is a sort of second order discipline that studies science in the way metalogic studies logic, metaethics studies ethics and what not. I'm treating epistemology as branch of philosophy.

BobSpence1 wrote:

That is not a pragmatic justification of Philosophy as a valid current discipline. I have many times acknowledged that Science, Logic. Math, etc. historically derived from Philosophy.

That argument could be used to justify Alchemy.

I'm not trying to justify philosophy pragmatically per se. I was offering it as a pragmatic justification if one wanted one. I personally do not think it needs to be justified pragmatically as "useful" because IMHO, philosophy undergirds purportedly more useful disciplines. Furthermore, I think pragmatic modes of justification are weak, as they assume that there is a shared value, such as usefulness. If one was not utilitarian about usefulness, but cared more so about esoteric nonsense, then a more mysterious discipline would appeal to such a person.

BobSpence1 wrote:

That ships analogy would appear to be true, unfortunately. I would describe Metaphysics as an outmoded series of speculations on the nature of reality.

If it empirically tested its ideas, it would be Science, if it doesn't, it can only be speculation, with no way of justifying any of its ideas as reaching the level of 'knowledge'.

I think it falls between two stools, with neither the empirical and results-based justification that Science can claim, nor the rigorous, deductive elaboration of the implications of elementary axioms, which map easily to fundamental real-world states, which Logic and Mathematics provide.

I have already strongly hinted I find your obsession with categorization as a distraction from seeking 'real' knowledge and insight. There is much discussion on the fringes of Science and the Philosophy of Science which I think covers most of what traditional Metaphysics addresses. You could conceivably classify that as contemporary Metaphysics, but it is mostly a different and updated approach, so I think it should not be tarred with that brush, even if it shares some concepts.

This is where I think categories are necessary, and perhaps why I'm being so banal. What is "real" is the concern of metaphysics, and what is "knowledge" is the concern of epistemology, and here it seems that they are smeared.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You've got me

ubuntuAnyone wrote:


This is where I think categories are necessary, and perhaps why I'm being so banal. What is "real" is the concern of metaphysics, and what is "knowledge" is the concern of epistemology, and here it seems that they are smeared.

 

Yeah - you've got me. I always thought metaphysics was a kind of fast and loose way of trying to link multiple scientific disciplines that was driven by the facts but was called on to bend them in order to get to all the ends into the middle. Does that makes metaphysics really real or is it expedient, or should I get my dictionary out? 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

From The New Oxford American Dictionary:

"Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion".

Science is NOT epistemology, it is about gaining knowledge about the empirical 'world'.

There is some study of the validity of its own methods, but this is more properly categorized as the Philosophy of Science, which could be described as Epistemology.

As I think about it now, I would say all of it. As I said above, what you are thinking of is properly part of the Philosophy of Science.



I think the difference is that you are treating epistemology as a particular discipline, and what I'm talking about is all sorts of epistemic modes of justification. I could say, "Science  is the investigation of what distinguishes justified true belief (a.k.a knowledge) from opinion about the empirical 'world'", and would then be a more specific form of epistemology, principally concerned with empirical induction. Philosophy of science is a sort of second order discipline that studies science in the way metalogic studies logic, metaethics studies ethics and what not. I'm treating epistemology as branch of philosophy.

To repeat, I see no justification for describing science that way. For someone obsessed with 'categories' of knowledge and approaches to understanding, you keep seriously blurring the normal definitions of those categories (such as the definitions of 'Science' and 'Epistemology').

Quote:


BobSpence1 wrote:

That is not a pragmatic justification of Philosophy as a valid current discipline. I have many times acknowledged that Science, Logic. Math, etc. historically derived from Philosophy.

That argument could be used to justify Alchemy.

I'm not trying to justify philosophy pragmatically per se. I was offering it as a pragmatic justification if one wanted one. I personally do not think it needs to be justified pragmatically as "useful" because IMHO, philosophy undergirds purportedly more useful disciplines. Furthermore, I think pragmatic modes of justification are weak, as they assume that there is a shared value, such as usefulness. If one was not utilitarian about usefulness, but cared more so about esoteric nonsense, then a more mysterious discipline would appeal to such a person.

BobSpence1 wrote:

That ships analogy would appear to be true, unfortunately. I would describe Metaphysics as an outmoded series of speculations on the nature of reality.

If it empirically tested its ideas, it would be Science, if it doesn't, it can only be speculation, with no way of justifying any of its ideas as reaching the level of 'knowledge'.

I think it falls between two stools, with neither the empirical and results-based justification that Science can claim, nor the rigorous, deductive elaboration of the implications of elementary axioms, which map easily to fundamental real-world states, which Logic and Mathematics provide.

I have already strongly hinted I find your obsession with categorization as a distraction from seeking 'real' knowledge and insight. There is much discussion on the fringes of Science and the Philosophy of Science which I think covers most of what traditional Metaphysics addresses. You could conceivably classify that as contemporary Metaphysics, but it is mostly a different and updated approach, so I think it should not be tarred with that brush, even if it shares some concepts.

This is where I think categories are necessary, and perhaps why I'm being so banal. What is "real" is the concern of metaphysics, and what is "knowledge" is the concern of epistemology, and here it seems that they are smeared.

 

Surely you mean "anal" not "banal".... 

Some categorization is indeed necessary, I am suggesting that we need a re-organized set of categories to account for the enormous growth of Science in both breadth and depth relative to older approaches to 'knowledge/understanding/insight/etc'.

I can't help observing that Epistemology is in severe danger of falling into a Gödelian self-referential trap if it tries to justify the 'truth' of its own methodology...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I always thought

Quote:

I always thought metaphysics was a kind of fast and loose way of trying to link multiple scientific disciplines that was driven by the facts but was called on to bend them in order to get to all the ends into the middle. Does that makes metaphysics really real or is it expedient, or should I get my dictionary out?

Dictionary definitions don't really do it for me when it comes to defining epistemology and metaphysics, but a primer is helpful. I had a negative view of it until I actually picked up some literature about it and started reading. The primer I read on metaphysics and found to be helpful is the one I mentioned to Bob by E.J. Lowe, but it's long. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives digest versions of epistemology and metaphysics.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:.To repeat,

BobSpence1 wrote:
.

To repeat, I see no justification for describing science that way. For someone obsessed with 'categories' of knowledge and approaches to understanding, you keep seriously blurring the normal definitions of those categories (such as the definitions of 'Science' and 'Epistemology').

I'm not trying to blur, but rather clarify. But for someone that sees science as a end-all-be-all sort of discipline, I'm not sure that I could ever accomplish this.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
.

Surely you mean "anal" not "banal".... 

Whoops.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.Some categorization is indeed necessary, I am suggesting that we need a re-organized set of categories to account for the enormous growth of Science in both breadth and depth relative to older approaches to 'knowledge/understanding/insight/etc'.

I would tend to disagree, as you can imagine, because I do not think that science can replace everything, because science, cannot be applied to everything.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.

I can't help observing that Epistemology is in severe danger of falling into a Gödelian self-referential trap if it tries to justify the 'truth' of its own methodology...

Such is a unique problem with epistemology, but should it be swallowed up, whatever replaces it is sure to suffer the same fate, creating an epistemic solipsism.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
.

To repeat, I see no justification for describing science that way. For someone obsessed with 'categories' of knowledge and approaches to understanding, you keep seriously blurring the normal definitions of those categories (such as the definitions of 'Science' and 'Epistemology').

I'm not trying to blur, but rather clarify. But for someone that sees science as a end-all-be-all sort of discipline, I'm not sure that I could ever accomplish this.

I'm sure you are not trying to blur, but in practice that is what you are doing, when you stretch and bend the definitions of both Science and Metaphysics because you don't accept the dictionary definitions.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
.

Surely you mean "anal" not "banal".... 

Whoops.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.Some categorization is indeed necessary, I am suggesting that we need a re-organized set of categories to account for the enormous growth of Science in both breadth and depth relative to older approaches to 'knowledge/understanding/insight/etc'.

I would tend to disagree, as you can imagine, because I do not think that science can replace everything, because science, cannot be applied to everything.

I don't believe Science can replace everything either, but it certainly addresses far more than it used to, and far more than what most people think, who don't follow scientific developments as closely as I do.

But if you are after as solid a base of real world knowledge as possible, Science is it. Philosophical or Metaphysical discourse which is not aware of what science may or may not have revealed that is relevant to their area of study and discourse is almost guarranteed to be talking nonsense.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
.

I can't help observing that Epistemology is in severe danger of falling into a Gödelian self-referential trap if it tries to justify the 'truth' of its own methodology...

Such is a unique problem with epistemology, but should it be swallowed up, whatever replaces it is sure to suffer the same fate, creating an epistemic solipsism.

 

The problem I see is that the attempt to establish any certainty about the certainty of 'knowledge' is ultimately futile, and hardly merits a whole discipline. There is some merit in thinking about how best to think about things, and coming up with various strategies and suggestions as to how one might form a world-view. That seems to be the strongest contribution of some Eastern Philosophies, especially Buddhism at its best. IOW, the one area than can be most appropriately addressed by internal intuition and contemplation is thought itself, and the internal perspective on the mind.

Such introspection is not particularly reliable about the broader nature of mind and the source of consciousness, but at least it can address those feelings, emotions, urges, desires and their management that we can access 'from the inside'.

It also is very appropriate to address the personal perspective on morals and ethics.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I'm sure

BobSpence1 wrote:

I'm sure you are not trying to blur, but in practice that is what you are doing, when you stretch and bend the definitions of both Science and Metaphysics because you don't accept the dictionary definitions.


If I'm reading a novel or defining my spelling words in a grade school, I then I might use a dictionary if I did not know what a particular word meant. Definitions are not bad per se, but they are limited. First, they lack specificity. Take atheism for instance. What does it mean to "believe" and what is meant by "god"? Second, they are not necessarily definitive (no pun intended). If I wanted a more definitive view of atheism, I would pick up a book about atheism and read it. Look up the word "science" and see what you get. It's not that I do not accept dictionary definitions, I go beyond them.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.
I don't believe Science can replace everything either, but it certainly addresses far more than it used to, and far more than what most people think, who don't follow scientific developments as closely as I do.

But if you are after as solid a base of real world knowledge as possible, Science is it. Philosophical or Metaphysical discourse which is not aware of what science may or may not have revealed that is relevant to their area of study and discourse is almost guarranteed to be talking nonsense.

This is exactly my point--you are making metaphysical assertions (i.e. "real world" ) and epistemic assertions (i.e.  "knowledge" ) all over the place, and I'm not sure that you are even aware that you are doing it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.
The problem I see is that the attempt to establish any certainty about the certainty of 'knowledge' is ultimately futile, and hardly merits a whole discipline. There is some merit in thinking about how best to think about things, and coming up with various strategies and suggestions as to how one might form a world-view. That seems to be the strongest contribution of some Eastern Philosophies, especially Buddhism at its best. IOW, the one area than can be most appropriately addressed by internal intuition and contemplation is thought itself, and the internal perspective on the mind.

Such introspection is not particularly reliable about the broader nature of mind and the source of consciousness, but at least it can address those feelings, emotions, urges, desires and their management that we can access 'from the inside'.

It also is very appropriate to address the personal perspective on morals and ethics.

I'd agree that certainty of "knowledge" is ultimately futile, in a deductive sense, but that's not what I'm looking for.

And I do like practical aspects of moral philsophies as such.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I'm sure you are not trying to blur, but in practice that is what you are doing, when you stretch and bend the definitions of both Science and Metaphysics because you don't accept the dictionary definitions.


If I'm reading a novel or defining my spelling words in a grade school, I then I might use a dictionary if I did not know what a particular word meant. Definitions are not bad per se, but they are limited. First, they lack specificity. Take atheism for instance. What does it mean to "believe" and what is meant by "god"? Second, they are not necessarily definitive (no pun intended). If I wanted a more definitive view of atheism, I would pick up a book about atheism and read it. Look up the word "science" and see what you get. It's not that I do not accept dictionary definitions, I go beyond them.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.
I don't believe Science can replace everything either, but it certainly addresses far more than it used to, and far more than what most people think, who don't follow scientific developments as closely as I do.

But if you are after as solid a base of real world knowledge as possible, Science is it. Philosophical or Metaphysical discourse which is not aware of what science may or may not have revealed that is relevant to their area of study and discourse is almost guarranteed to be talking nonsense.

This is exactly my point--you are making metaphysical assertions (i.e. "real world" ) and epistemic assertions (i.e.  "knowledge" ) all over the place, and I'm not sure that you are even aware that you are doing it.

I am certainly aware that many such statements could be identified as within the domain of Metaphysics, but many of those same statements could also be claimed by science as well.

If you just want use the term Metaphysical as a description of certain kinds of statement, then fine. I personally don't like it as it carries so much medieval (and earlier ) baggage.

You need more than this to justify it as a serious 'discipline', leading to significant insights.

I could equally say that I am doing Physics every time I carefully measure something, as part of building or modifying some structure. It is true in an informal sense, but not in the sense of Physics as an organised domain of study.

Quote:


BobSpence1 wrote:
.
The problem I see is that the attempt to establish any certainty about the certainty of 'knowledge' is ultimately futile, and hardly merits a whole discipline. There is some merit in thinking about how best to think about things, and coming up with various strategies and suggestions as to how one might form a world-view. That seems to be the strongest contribution of some Eastern Philosophies, especially Buddhism at its best. IOW, the one area than can be most appropriately addressed by internal intuition and contemplation is thought itself, and the internal perspective on the mind.

Such introspection is not particularly reliable about the broader nature of mind and the source of consciousness, but at least it can address those feelings, emotions, urges, desires and their management that we can access 'from the inside'.

It also is very appropriate to address the personal perspective on morals and ethics.

I'd agree that certainty of "knowledge" is ultimately futile, in a deductive sense, but that's not what I'm looking for.

And I do like practical aspects of moral philsophies as such.

I do continue to wonder just what you are 'looking for'...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I am

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am certainly aware that many such statements could be identified as within the domain of Metaphysics, but many of those same statements could also be claimed by science as well.

If you just want use the term Metaphysical as a description of certain kinds of statement, then fine. I personally don't like it as it carries so much medieval (and earlier ) baggage.

You need more than this to justify it as a serious 'discipline', leading to significant insights.

I could equally say that I am doing Physics every time I carefully measure something, as part of building or modifying some structure. It is true in an informal sense, but not in the sense of Physics as an organised domain of study.

The quote "real world" is not something that physics can determine. In Hindu cosmology or in the Matrix story, the world in which physics would be observing is a dream world. An "organised domain of study" would be a epistemic endeavor, not a metaphysical one.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I do continue to wonder just what you are 'looking for'...

I'm looking for a holistic ontology and epistemology.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am certainly aware that many such statements could be identified as within the domain of Metaphysics, but many of those same statements could also be claimed by science as well.

If you just want use the term Metaphysical as a description of certain kinds of statement, then fine. I personally don't like it as it carries so much medieval (and earlier ) baggage.

You need more than this to justify it as a serious 'discipline', leading to significant insights.

I could equally say that I am doing Physics every time I carefully measure something, as part of building or modifying some structure. It is true in an informal sense, but not in the sense of Physics as an organised domain of study.

The quote "real world" is not something that physics can determine. In Hindu cosmology or in the Matrix story, the world in which physics would be observing is a dream world. An "organised domain of study" would be a epistemic endeavor, not a metaphysical one.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I do continue to wonder just what you are 'looking for'...

I'm looking for a holistic ontology and epistemology.

 

No domain of study, whether part of 'Science' or of any Religion, Philosophy, mystical world-view or whatever, can determine what constitutes the 'real world'. They could all be true, or equally relatively true, or valid, from the appropriate point of view. Our very definitely finite brains/minds can only perceive a subset of ultimate reality.

I would see that that whatever claims other world-views may have to being a valid world-view, let alone the valid interpretation of "reality",  "Science" has by far the best track-record in revealing the deeper levels of the version of reality that appears to impinge most directly on most people, simply because it tries to filter out the errors that we are most prone to. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Logic is a branch of

Logic is a branch of philosophy, so since it is so relevant in math and science, I don't think this is artificial. However ethics just seems like the study of how to make up excuses for doing whatever is most convenient anyways.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No domain

BobSpence1 wrote:

No domain of study, whether part of 'Science' or of any Religion, Philosophy, mystical world-view or whatever, can determine what constitutes the 'real world'. They could all be true, or equally relatively true, or valid, from the appropriate point of view. Our very definitely finite brains/minds can only perceive a subset of ultimate reality.

I would see that that whatever claims other world-views may have to being a valid world-view, let alone the valid interpretation of "reality",  "Science" has by far the best track-record in revealing the deeper levels of the version of reality that appears to impinge most directly on most people, simply because it tries to filter out the errors that we are most prone to. 

Because of the epistemic nature of science, it informs one about "reality", but in and of itself does not assume any particular metaphysical account about the world it is observing. One needs only permute science with something else to have everything science has to offer then some.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No domain of study, whether part of 'Science' or of any Religion, Philosophy, mystical world-view or whatever, can determine what constitutes the 'real world'. They could all be true, or equally relatively true, or valid, from the appropriate point of view. Our very definitely finite brains/minds can only perceive a subset of ultimate reality.

I would see that that whatever claims other world-views may have to being a valid world-view, let alone the valid interpretation of "reality",  "Science" has by far the best track-record in revealing the deeper levels of the version of reality that appears to impinge most directly on most people, simply because it tries to filter out the errors that we are most prone to. 

Because of the epistemic nature of science, it informs one about "reality", but in and of itself does not assume any particular metaphysical account about the world it is observing. One needs only permute science with something else to have everything science has to offer then some.

Or more likely something that falls between stools, and is less than either.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


lokipro
lokipro's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:I was reading

Ken G. wrote:

I was reading about the mind,and then this question came to me . Please give me your point of view .  

I've always liked to think of philosophy as an eggregious form of mental masturbation. Fun to do, but only fun to watch when you're into that kind of thing.