What is philosophy?

[Dadoo]

All philosophies are varying views on a single topic, whether misguided, blinded or fully cognizant and encompassing. There are no two philosophies to this mind, although there are many ways to tell a similar tale. We may lose the value of an individual's perspective if we judge them upon semantic principles alone. The very fact that there are many views is philosophy enough, for myself. Bring on all sides and angles of the tale. Call it what you wish. In any case nothing said can alter the experience, or falsify a point-of-view, so long as it is qualified in that manner; as opinion.
Morality and philosophy have nearly nothing to do with each other, as broad subjects go. One man's garbage is another's bread and butter.

[Starboy]

Dadoo, how much do you know about philosophy? You sound like you know just about nothing. But hey, that is par for the course for philosophy.

Starboy

[Plegmund]

One view is that philosophy deals with all those issues which cannot (or cannot yet) be usefully addressed by empirical or mathematical (scientific if you like) methods. Over time, people come up with theories that allow particular sets of problems to be treated scientifically, and then those problems break away from philosophy to form a separate science. This happened with physics (Newton would have considered himself a natural philosopher) early on, and then gradually with other issues. I read somewhere recently a philosopher's suggestion that psychology hadn't quite completed its disengagement, or rather, was like a 20-year old who had left the parental home but kept coming back to get its washing done from time to time.

If that's the right way of looking at things, it's a bit unfair to blame philosophers for never coming up with final answers - every time they do, those answers cease to be regarded as philosophy.

I do wish, anyway, that scientists would drop the "Rah, team!" attitude they sometimes have to other subjects: philosophers are not a rival nation, just people who are interested in a different set of questions. It would be easy to construct a similar kind of anti-science rhetoric if one wanted ("Hey, those physicists change their minds every fifty years, and they still expect us to take the latest stuff seriously - whereas Plato was so right he's never needed updating") - but why bother? That would just make us look as if we had some kind of, you know, inferiority complex.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: Livemike Well let's see now, Ayn Rand (not all the time but she has some good points. Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards". is a must read, Objectivity and Truth by Ronald Dworkin http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/...bjectivity.html, and a piece whose authorship I'm not sure about but I think is by http://www.jim.com/moralfac.htm James A. Donald. Oh and anything by Lysander Spooner is good. All I see here is a list of people that you like.

Which is exactly what you asked for. Don't mention it, you're welcome.

Quote by: Starboy So what? Why should their take on anything let alone morals be important? What criterion have you applied other than personal preference? It might as well be art.

Here's a suggestion, why not actually read what I give you before assessing how valuable it is?

[quote=Starboy]
[quote=Livemike]
I didn't say that. I said you weren't that smart if you can't figure out why it's real useful to know if the person you might be about to deal with someone who generally acts morally or not. So tell me, can you figure out why that's important? It's not a hard question and if you can answer it you should be able to figure out why moral philosophy is important and what relation it has to reality.
[/QUOTE}

If you think that philosophy can help you make that distinction then you are the idiot.
[/QUOTE}

So it's now confirmed that you are in fact, dumber than dirt. Why did you think I specifically mentioned _moral_ philosophy? You can't figure out whether someone is moral or not without doing some thinking, conscious or not, on moral philosophy.

[quote=Starboy]
People who have actually studied human behavior would be the people that I would consult if I were concerned if someone would act appropriately.
[/QUOTE}

Appropriately to what? I'm not asking whether the act was appropriate I'm asking whether it was moral. If it was then that tends to indicate they will act morally in the future, if not the opposite. Knowing if their behaviour is "appropriate", a meaningless term without context, is useless for this effort.

Quote by: Starboy But let us say for the sake of argument that you are correct, in that philosophers are the fountain of knowledge in regards to proper behavior.

Which is not what I said. What I said was that philosophy _not philosopher_ was neccesary to answer this question.

Quote by: Starboy It is not as if they all say the same things. What criterion should one use to prefer the teachings of one philosopher over another?

Is there reasoning consistent with logic given appropriate moral premises? Or you could just use the links I gave you for a start.

Quote by: Livemike Which is one of the reasons why I recommend Ayn Rand (conditionally). She stresses the importance of the moral premise. If the philosophy is not consistent with moral axioms then it's wrong. If you can't figure out what the moral axioms are then that's probably not anyone else's fault.

Quote by: Starboy The word “moral” is just another philosophy bullshit word, right in there with “truth”.

And why should I take your word on that you can't figure out the simplest moral principles even when I spoonfeed them to and and can't remember the name of the "most astute" philosopher you ever read? In fact I posted a link that shows that it isn't a "philosophy bullshit word" and you were too wedded to your own pig ignorance to bother looking at it. On and if "moral" was a philosophy bullshit word then saying that saying it is is a "truth" and so "truth" is not a "philosophy bullshit word". Man if you knew anything about philosophy you wouldn't fall for that one. But you don't. Nevertheless you feel entitled to declaim on the subject with an arrogance equaled only by your incuriousity.

Quote by: Starboy One man’s morals are another mans sin.

No morality is universal. Read the links.

Quote by: Starboy One man’s “truth” is another man’s lie.

No if something is true it's true. There are no "individual" truths. Something is either true for me and you or not true at all. That's what distinguishes it from opinion.

Quote by: Starboy They are overused ambiguous terms that have come to mean nothing. If by morals you mean ‘how we should live and treat each other and everything else’ then why is Ayn Rand any better than any other philosopher other than because you just happen to like it. What will result from Rand’s take that would not be better accomplished by another philosophy and what makes you think the Rand’s take will accomplish anything that you would like at all?

Well if you really wanted to know you'd read some. But you don't. You just proclaim that all philosophy is bullshit despite obviously not having read much and obviously not wanting to. All you want to do is establish some cred as a cynical know-it-all by rubbishing the work of people smarter than you. If you change your mind and actually want to learn something useful, read the links.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy It is all just philosophical bullshit. The same as all other philosophical bullshit. There is no reason other then personal preference to think that anything Rand has to say is important at all.

You say that without reading any of her work, I can tell.

Quote by: Livemike It's not at all important to me what the majority of people paid to be philosophers and claiming to be proficient at it think. If it were any credible philosopher would point out that I'm committing a combination of the Argumentum ad numerum http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum and the Argumentum ad verecundiam http://www.infidels.org/news/atheis....html#authority. The fact is that some philosophers do check their conclusions against reality and others are crap.

Quote by: Starboy The philosophers that do this cease to be philosophers. They then become scientists.

No they don't because they are still working on philosophical problems.

Quote by: Starboy But the tradition of philosophy is to eschew such practices. The mere fact that all the philosophy ever done is still all considered to be valid philosophy by philosophers should be more than enough indication that they have no method to prefer one philosophy over another and they have no method within the field to discredit and discard philosophies.

Considered by who? I don't consider it all valid and neither do many of the philosophers over the last 2000 years. For you to make this statement shows an ignorance of philosophical matters that is startling in someone who would willingly enter a debate on the subject and proclaim himself knowledgable.

Quote by: Starboy The crap from 2,500 years ago is just as good as the crap that someone came up with last week. BTW the people that post over at IIDB in the philosophy section are a bunch of wankers.

I wouldn't bring people's personalities into this if I were you. It's been a long time since I came to such a negative opinion on someone's intelligence and virtue so fast as I have yours. And if the "crap from 2,500 years ago is just as good as the crap that someone came up with last week" you should be able to quote some of both, without googling for it since you're such an expert. The fact is that you know no philosophy, don't want to know any philosophy and can't apply philosophy when it's explained to you.

Quote by: Livemike You're still being taught Newtonian physics aren't you? The humor theory of biology and medicine was rejected because it was wrong and dangerous. At least some of what the ancient philosophers wrote is not.

Quote by: Starboy Sure. So what? Science is not about what is “true”. It is the human endeavor to honestly explore and explain reality. Newtonian physics is not taught because it is “true”, it is taught because it is useful. It can be shown to be useful. It is shown to be useful continuously. If something more useful comes along it will be discarded. Nobody in physics will tell you that Newtonian physics is the “truth” of motion. Nobody in physics will tell you that any theory of physics is the “truth” of anything. They just happen to be the best explanations to date. They can be shown to be the best explanations to date. That is how they become the best explanations to date. That is because science does have methods for preferring one explanation over another. But philosophers are more than willing to make “truth” claims all the time. Then they will deliberately confuse their “truth” claims with reality claims but will not require or even try to test those claims against actual reality. But they will still claim that what they say is “true”. Sorry, science is not about what is “true”. That would be philosophy.

In other words you are taught Newtonian physics because it's still good. Well you're taught (if it's possible to teach you) Aristotlian philosophy because (some of it) is still good.

Quote by: Livemike The link you give clearly states that St. Thomas Aquineas didn't say "What he said" and point to Aristotle. He used Aristotle, Plato and others to form a philosophy which wasn't just "What he said". So why claim I'm a moron for saying what your post proves right?

Quote by: Starboy Hey, you held up Aquineas as an example of a philosopher that didn’t play a game of “what he said”. You were wrong. Take your lumps.

No I was right. He did not point to Aristotle and say "What he said.". He used Aristotle and other philosophers to form entirely new philosophical beliefs. That is not pointing to Aristotle and saying "What he said.". The fact that it is different is a "truth". It matters whether or not what you're saying is a "truth" it's not just a "bullshit philosophy word" as you claimed above. If it were you wouldn't try to use the concept on being factually right to your advantage (and fail).

Quote by: Starboy I bring it up to illustrate that because philosophy has no way to prefer one philosophy over another that philosophy is reduced to nothing more than a game of “what he said”.

Damn shame the first link you gave specifically said that he didn't do that isn't it?

Quote by: Starboy If there were other ways then philosophy could be introduced completely on its own merits because they could point to this other criterion as a basis for considering that particular philosophy as worth while. Just like in science. In science you can publish a paper that makes no reference to previous theories as long as you can present an experiment that everyone can reproduce to back up your claim. Hell you can even say in that paper that someone like Einstein appears to have gotten it all wrong. This can happen in science because it has something that philosophy will never have; an actual test against nature that is used to prefer one scientific explanation over another. Because philosophy lacks this all they have is “what he said”.

Quote by: Livemike Ok, so it's idiotic to know if a person acts moral or not? Great. So when you're deciding who to have run your financial affairs you won't find out if any of the applicants acted in ways that might be considered immoral? You know a certain kind of people and their money are soon parted.

Quote by: Starboy You seem to think that philosophy is the only method on the face of the earth that one can use to determine ‘what is the best way to relate to others and everything else around you’.

When did I say that? I merely point out that you can't assess a person's suitability for certain activities without making moral judgements. You can't do that without a moral theory, which is neccesarily and by definition a moral philosophy.

Quote by: Starboy It is not. There is science. It is chock full of useful information on behavior and its consequences. It is also a lot more useful in figuring out why people behave as they do and a hell of a lot more useful in figuring out what to do about it.

The science of what is moral or not is called moral philosophy. For christ's sake read the link:
http://www.jim.com/moralfac.htm

Quote by: Livemike BTW by admitting that I'm more astute than the philosopher you claim is "most astute" you implictly admit that my philosophy makes more sense than his. And since I based that claim on an instance that very much relates to reality you implictedly admit that moral arguments based on realitycan be valid. Yet you still cling to the idea that none of it relates to reality. Why?

Quote by: Starboy Not at all. You may think that all other philosophy except that which you espouse is nonsense. I agree with that and I also include the philosophy that you espouse.

Sorry idiot but you specifically admitted not that my philosophy is more astute than his:

Livemike:
"So your 'most astute' philosopher couldn't give a definitive answer to whether killing to protect your child from a murderer is more moral than the murderer killing your child? Well I can. So obviously I'm more astute than him."

Starboy:
"No argument from me. Philosophy is for idiots."

So if none of it relates to reality how can some of it be more astute? Grow up and actually start thinking about something. I've given you more time and more links that you deserve. Read them or shut the fuck up.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy Dadoo, how much do you know about philosophy? You sound like you know just about nothing. But hey, that is par for the course for philosophy. Starboy

This from a man who can't name the philosopher he considers "most astute", a philosopher that he readily admits isn't as good as I am, claims that St. Thomas Aquineas simply pointed to Aristotle and said "What he said", thinks truth is meaningless but tries to use it to win an argument and judges philosophies usefulness on the basis of the opinion of the majority of paid or claimed philosophers.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Livemike Which is exactly what you asked for. Don't mention it, you're welcome.

*WHOOSH*

I guess that point went right over your head. I asked you to name a philosopher. You see if you name several philosophers, unless all those philosophers say pretty much the same thing when it comes to morals, you really haven't nailed down morals. It is not as if you actually know what constitutes morals. All you have are a bunch of opinions. So what? You hold up morals as an important contribution of philosophy yet all you have done is indicate that philosophy can't make up its mind as to what morals should be.

Here's a suggestion, why not actually read what I give you before assessing how valuable it is?

That is the exact same arguments that religious people use. LDS does it all the time. Read the book of Mormon and then you will see why you should believe in it. Bull shit. If there is a reason to prefer Rand over another philosopher then you should be able to state it without requiring someone to read a single word of Rand. Just as I can tell you why QM is a better theory than NM without having to tell you a single thing about the internals of QM or NM. This is my entire point that just seems to be *WHOSHING* right over your head. If there are objective ways of preferring one theory over another all one needs to evaluate are the claims of the theory, not any of the internal aspects of the theory itself. Anything else is a subjective evaluation. Such evaluations are a matter of taste. So you like Rand, big deal. I like mashed potatoes, so what.

Which is not what I said. What I said was that philosophy _not philosopher_ was neccesary to answer this question.

What a crock. That is like being famous for being famous. So what? Who cares. You say it is important for morals but you never bother to clarify WTF morals are. If morals are anything having to do with reality then people who actually study reality are going to be a whole lot better at it than just about every philosopher that ever walked the planet.

Is there reasoning consistent with logic given appropriate moral premises? Or you could just use the links I gave you for a start.

Logical consistency doesn't mean that it has anything at all to do with reality. You can have two philosophies that are both logically consistent and both contradict each other. What criterion do you use to prefer one over the other; other than personal preference?

And why should I take your word on that you can't figure out the simplest moral principles even when I spoonfeed them to and and can't remember the name of the "most astute" philosopher you ever read? In fact I posted a link that shows that it isn't a "philosophy bullshit word" and you were too wedded to your own pig ignorance to bother looking at it. On and if "moral" was a philosophy bullshit word then saying that saying it is is a "truth" and so "truth" is not a "philosophy bullshit word". Man if you knew anything about philosophy you wouldn't fall for that one. But you don't. Nevertheless you feel entitled to declaim on the subject with an arrogance equaled only by your incuriousity.

Don't take my word for it. I don't care. You have made the claim that philosophy is important, not I. You have held up the area of morals as your shinning example. Not I. You have not been able to give a reason for preferring one philosophy over another other than personal preference, not I. I could be a complete raving lunatic and you can still be full of shit with your worthless philosophy. The issue is not about me or what I think about "truth" or "morals". If you have a legitimate case to make then make it.

No morality is universal. Read the links.

I never said it was. I make no claims about morality. This is just my observation regarding those that do make claims about morality.

No if something is true it's true. There are no "individual" truths. Something is either true for me and you or not true at all. That's what distinguishes it from opinion.

And exactly how does philosophy make this determination?

Well if you really wanted to know you'd read some. But you don't. You just proclaim that all philosophy is bullshit despite obviously not having read much and obviously not wanting to. All you want to do is establish some cred as a cynical know-it-all by rubbishing the work of people smarter than you. If you change your mind and actually want to learn something useful, read the links.

What makes you think I haven't read any philosophy? And why does it matter? You have not addressed any of my criticisms of philosophy. I could be a complete lunatic but that still doesn't mean that both you and your philosophy are not full of shit. You will substantiate your claims about philosophy not by making me out to be an idiot but by demonstrating how philosophy is about things that are real and how one should prefer one philosophy over another. If you can't do that then one must conclude that it is about things that are not real and one chooses one philosophy verses another based on personal preference. Gee, sounds a lot like religion.

Starboy

[Dadoo]

Starboy,
I only know of philosophy what I read.
I know less about it the more I study. I see varying and disparate views upon a single subject. I rarely quote another's line, as I cannot trust I know precisely what they meant.
Even Lao-Tzu SPOKE when he said, "He who knows, does not speak; He who speaks does not know."
The apophatic nature of my own experience leads me to lengthy discourse. I believe my joy sprouts from the rhapsody ABOUT existence, as existence itself is terribly mundane, common and malleable. (Thanks be noted)
I ascribe the "M" theory of philosphy to all accounts laid before me: "Philosophia Perennis". I see all reality as an amalgative complex of systems needing no definition to be grasped. I cleave only to "Istigkeit" or Is-ness to validate mine or any others view, including yours.
The enlightenment humankind seeks will be evidented in quality of life.
I read most classical philosophy of Eastern and Western origin by 14, under guidance of my Aunt who was the head of Columbia Univ. English dept many years ago. I cannot tell you what a monumental waste of time this exercise was, as one must experience the monotony, the arrogance, the intensity and the humility of various great minds in order to find only that which resonates personally will persist within and without.
Aye, I'm a fool, to be sure, but not completely. In this way, we are all the same.

Currently, I am reading the work of Huston Smith. What do I know? Nothing.
Just like all of them! :( / :)
Dadoo

[Starboy]

Dadoo, the philosophy I am talking about is more of what you would find in a typical University philosophy department. There is a broader meaning of the word that applies to just about everything and thus it applies to nothing.

Starboy

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy *WHOOSH* I guess that point went right over your head. I asked you to name a philosopher. You see if you name several philosophers, unless all those philosophers say pretty much the same thing when it comes to morals, you really haven't nailed down morals.

You asked for "a philosopher that one should listen to in regards to morality?". I gave you several. You did not ask for one philosopher that tells everything you need to know about moral philosophy in one book. You didn't ask for a definitive and total answer to all moral philosophical questions from one source.

Quote by: Starboy It is not as if you actually know what constitutes morals. All you have are a bunch of opinions.

No they are not just a "bunch of opinions" as you'd know if you read the links. Specifically this one http://www.jim.com/moralfac.htm.

Quote by: Starboy So what? You hold up morals as an important contribution of philosophy yet all you have done is indicate that philosophy can't make up its mind as to what morals should be.

I've no more done that than someone who gives several sources on string theory
has shown physics to be a "bunch of opinions".

Quote by: Starboy That is the exact same arguments that religious people use. LDS does it all the time. Read the book of Mormon and then you will see why you should believe in it. Bull shit. If there is a reason to prefer Rand over another philosopher then you should be able to state it without requiring someone to read a single word of Rand.

Why you clearly wouldn't believe it? Ok then the reason for people to believe Rand is that (within limits) her philosophy is both based on logical deductions from moral axioms that can't really be denied without believeing in some fairly stupid things.

Quote by: Starboy Just as I can tell you why QM is a better theory than NM without having to tell you a single thing about the internals of QM or NM. This is my entire point that just seems to be *WHOSHING* right over your head.

And why should I believe QM is a better theory than NM without knowing anything about either? I would simply be accepting your opinion which is hardly a good basis. Your point is that you don't want to read explanations for why philosophy matters by people who are actually good at explaining it.

Quote by: Starboy If there are objective ways of preferring one theory over another all one needs to evaluate are the claims of the theory, not any of the internal aspects of the theory itself.

Ok then the claims of Objectivist theory are that it explains from a set of coherent and pretty unarguable moral axioms a complete moral theory. It does that pretty well. The claims of the http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/f...jectivity.html
is that it explains why there is objective truth, and it does.

Quote by: Starboy Anything else is a subjective evaluation. Such evaluations are a matter of taste. So you like Rand, big deal. I like mashed potatoes, so what. What a crock. That is like being famous for being famous. So what? Who cares. You say it is important for morals but you never bother to clarify WTF morals are.

Actually I did, you just didn't understand it. If my explanation wasn't good enough try the fucking link: http://www.jim.com/moralfac.htm

Quote by: Starboy If morals are anything having to do with reality then people who actually study reality are going to be a whole lot better at it than just about every philosopher that ever walked the planet.

Only if they study the relevent parts of reality. And in any case some philosophers do study reality. Like the ones I gave you links to.

Quote by: Starboy Logical consistency doesn't mean that it has anything at all to do with reality. You can have two philosophies that are both logically consistent and both contradict each other. What criterion do you use to prefer one over the other; other than personal preference?

Fucking Jesus I told you look at the axioms.

Quote by: Starboy Don't take my word for it. I don't care. You have made the claim that philosophy is important, not I. You have held up the area of morals as your shinning example. Not I. You have not been able to give a reason for preferring one philosophy over another other than personal preference, not I. I could be a complete raving lunatic and you can still be full of shit with your worthless philosophy. The issue is not about me or what I think about "truth" or "morals". If you have a legitimate case to make then make it.

I did, you didn't understand it because you're less intelligent than you like to pretend you are. In order to keep up the pretence of intelligence you have consistently refused to look at the evidence or think about what I tell you.

Quote by: Starboy I never said it was. I make no claims about morality. This is just my observation regarding those that do make claims about morality.

You very much did make claims about reality when you started this thread.

Quote by: Starboy And exactly how does philosophy make this determination? What makes you think I haven't read any philosophy?

Well the fact that you can't seem to name a single philosopher, don't know what St. Thomas Aquineas said even vaguely, make claims as though you did and make basic logical fallacies that nobody would make if they knew philosophy were my first hints.

Quote by: Starboy And why does it matter? You have not addressed any of my criticisms of philosophy.

Actually I did, you just didn't understand it. If my explanation wasn't good enough try the fucking link: http://www.jim.com/moralfac.htm

Quote by: Starboy I could be a complete lunatic but that still doesn't mean that both you and your philosophy are not full of shit. You will substantiate your claims about philosophy not by making me out to be an idiot but by demonstrating how philosophy is about things that are real and how one should prefer one philosophy over another.

And I did. So read the fucking link I gave you and stop whining.

Quote by: Starboy If you can't do that then one must conclude that it is about things that are not real and one chooses one philosophy verses another based on personal preference. Gee, sounds a lot like religion. Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Livemike And why should I believe QM is a better theory than NM without knowing anything about either? I would simply be accepting your opinion which is hardly a good basis. Your point is that you don't want to read explanations for why philosophy matters by people who are actually good at explaining it.

This is the crux of the entire matter. All you understand is the philosophical way of knowing things and you are completely oblivious to a new kid on the block called science.

Let us say that you got together the QM scientists and placed them in a building and called it “The Oracle of QM”. You then gathered up the NM people in to a building and called it “The Oracle of NM”. Then you wanted to know which the better oracle was. Now you could enter the buildings and speak to each of the groups and you could see that both used some very sophisticated mathematics. That they had many formalized structures. That there was a large collection of papers and experiments. And if you were a philosopher you would say that they were both equally good. And for a philosopher this would be a satisfying outcome.

Then a scientist comes along and he has come across this thing called a “spectrum”. He discovered it by accident while examining the light from hot hydrogen gas as it passed through a prism. Now he is just a lowly experimentalist and doesn’t know all that much about theory. He occupies himself by discovering new materials and measuring their properties and he wondered what the light from glowing hydrogen would look like if he passed it through a prism. So anyway he gets this spectrum and then wonders what the explanation of it is and if other atomic gasses should have such things and if they would be the same or not.

So he decides to go to “The Oracle of NM”. He asks them “What would the spectrum of glowing hydrogen gas look like?” The Oracles of NM retreat back into their building and a day later they emerge. The head Oracle speaks and says “The spectrum will look like this” and he pulls out a sheet of paper illustrating the spectrum.

Well the lowly experimentalists looks at it and sees that it is nothing like what he has seen in his lab. So he leaves and thinks to himself, “Oh my, what is going on?” So he goes back to his lab and measures it again, and low and behold it is the same. He tries measuring it several different ways and it is still the same. He calls his buddy up and asks him to do the experiment and low and behold it is the same. The lowly experimentalist is stumped. No matter what he tries he cannot get the spectrum that was predicted by “The Oracle of NM”.

So he says, “What the hey, I’ll try The Oracle of QM.” So he asks “The Oracle of QM” what the spectrum of glowing hydrogen should look like and a day later the Oracle emerges and shows it to him and he says “Damn, that is spot on.” He then asks the Oracle what the spectrum of several other elements should look like, the Oracle tells him. So he heads back to his lab and does the experiments and low and behold, every single prediction is confirmed. So from the experimentalists point of view he has a way of preferring one set of oracles over another and he never set a toe inside either building nor does he have the slightest idea how either oracle did their stuff. The experimentalist does indeed have a way of preferring one explanation over another without having to know a dang thing about the explanation or how the explanation works.

This is what makes science fundamentally different from philosophy. Philosophy doesn’t have such methods. All they have is the Grand Canyon method. People look, see how grand it is, nod there heads and are suitable impressed. It could be complete bull shit (and often is) but dang it sure do look impressive.

Starboy

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: Livemike And why should I believe QM is a better theory than NM without knowing anything about either? I would simply be accepting your opinion which is hardly a good basis. Your point is that you don't want to read explanations for why philosophy matters by people who are actually good at explaining it. This is the crux of the entire matter. All you understand is the philosophical way of knowing things and you are completely oblivious to a new kid on the block called science.

Actually I know quite a bit about science and even quite a bit about Quantum
Mechanics, but I don't even know what NM is. That's considerably better than your
knowledge of philosophy but you don't care to educate yourself better.

Quote by: Starboy Let us say that you got together the QM scientists and placed them in a building and called it “The Oracle of QM”. You then gathered up the NM people in to a building and called it “The Oracle of NM”. Then you wanted to know which the better oracle was. Now you could enter the buildings and speak to each of the groups and you could see that both used some very sophisticated mathematics. That they had many formalized structures. That there was a large collection of papers and experiments. And if you were a philosopher you would say that they were both equally good. And for a philosopher this would be a satisfying outcome.

Actually no it wouldn't.

Quote by: Starboy Then a scientist comes along and he has come across this thing called a “spectrum”. He discovered it by accident while examining the light from hot hydrogen gas as it passed through a prism. Now he is just a lowly experimentalist and doesn’t know all that much about theory. He occupies himself by discovering new materials and measuring their properties and he wondered what the light from glowing hydrogen would look like if he passed it through a prism. So anyway he gets this spectrum and then wonders what the explanation of it is and if other atomic gasses should have such things and if they would be the same or not. So he decides to go to “The Oracle of NM”. He asks them “What would the spectrum of glowing hydrogen gas look like?” The Oracles of NM retreat back into their building and a day later they emerge. The head Oracle speaks and says “The spectrum will look like this” and he pulls out a sheet of paper illustrating the spectrum. Well the lowly experimentalists looks at it and sees that it is nothing like what he has seen in his lab. So he leaves and thinks to himself, “Oh my, what is going on?” So he goes back to his lab and measures it again, and low and behold it is the same. He tries measuring it several different ways and it is still the same. He calls his buddy up and asks him to do the experiment and low and behold it is the same. The lowly experimentalist is stumped. No matter what he tries he cannot get the spectrum that was predicted by “The Oracle of NM”. So he says, “What the hey, I’ll try The Oracle of QM.” So he asks “The Oracle of QM” what the spectrum of glowing hydrogen should look like and a day later the Oracle emerges and shows it to him and he says “Damn, that is spot on.” He then asks the Oracle what the spectrum of several other elements should look like, the Oracle tells him. So he heads back to his lab and does the experiments and low and behold, every single prediction is confirmed. So from the experimentalists point of view he has a way of preferring one set of oracles over another and he never set a toe inside either building nor does he have the slightest idea how either oracle did their stuff. The experimentalist does indeed have a way of preferring one explanation over another without having to know a dang thing about the explanation or how the explanation works. This is what makes science fundamentally different from philosophy.

Actually it's how it's fundamentally similar when done right. See the links I gave you.

Quote by: Starboy Philosophy doesn’t have such methods. All they have is the Grand Canyon method. People look, see how grand it is, nod there heads and are suitable impressed. It could be complete bull shit (and often is) but dang it sure do look impressive. Starboy

No there are ways to show things in philosophy particularly in moral philosophy. I
gave you the links now read them. I can't be bothered to type them out for you and
in any case they wouldn't fit.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Livemike Actually I know quite a bit about science and even quite a bit about Quantum Mechanics, but I don't even know what NM is. That's considerably better than your knowledge of philosophy but you don't care to educate yourself better.

NM == Newtonian Mechanics.

Gee, I would have thought that a person so knowledgeable about QM would have known that the first equation of QM was based on the Hamiltonian, an equation of NM.

You have missed the point of my post. If there is anything to the philosophy then you do not have to know anything about how it works or what it says in order to test it. That any given philosophy should be able to make testable reality claims that can then be compared to actual reality. That is my point. There is a fundamental difference between science and philosophy. Philosophers do not test their philosophies against reality. If a philosopher does this then they are no longer philosophers. They become scientists.

Actually no it wouldn't.

And as a philosopher how would you determine that one should be preferred over the other? Philosophers actually had a hard time with QM. Like Einstein, they did not think that god played dice with the universe. They would have gone with the NM folks just on general principles. It was only after all the experimental evidence and the success of the theory at explaining old and new phenomenon that philosophers adopted QM.

Actually it's how it's fundamentally similar when done right. See the links I gave you. No there are ways to show things in philosophy particularly in moral philosophy. I gave you the links now read them. I can't be bothered to type them out for you and in any case they wouldn't fit.

Post the links again would you? I would love to see how philosophers prefer one moral philosophy over another.

Starboy

[Navigator]

Philosophy is the clarification of meaning.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Navigator Philosophy is the clarification of meaning.

That is a new one and it is very funny.

Starboy

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy NM == Newtonian Mechanics. Gee, I would have thought that a person so knowledgeable about QM would have known that the first equation of QM was based on the Hamiltonian, an equation of NM. You have missed the point of my post. If there is anything to the philosophy then you do not have to know anything about how it works or what it says in order to test it.

Actually that's not true because philosophy is neccesary to construct valid tests, as for instance your example of using the philosophy of science to test quantum mechanics. If you don't know that results are the way to judge a theory (which is a philosophical insight) then you won't be able to establish the truth of QM being superior to NM.

Quote by: Starboy That any given philosophy should be able to make testable reality claims that can then be compared to actual reality. That is my point. There is a fundamental difference between science and philosophy. Philosophers do not test their philosophies against reality. If a philosopher does this then they are no longer philosophers. They become scientists.

And yet I've given you links to those that do exactly that.

Quote by: Starboy And as a philosopher how would you determine that one should be preferred over the other?

By whether it makes logical sense given obvious moral axioms like self-ownership. I've explained this, I've given links to explain this. You don't care to understand it so stop pretending you want to know.

Quote by: Starboy Philosophers actually had a hard time with QM. Like Einstein, they did not think that god played dice with the universe. They would have gone with the NM folks just on general principles. It was only after all the experimental evidence and the success of the theory at explaining old and new phenomenon that philosophers adopted QM. Post the links again would you? I would love to see how philosophers prefer one moral philosophy over another.

No you love to waste my time. You have no interest in anything that challenges your worldview.

Quote by: Starboy Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Livemike Actually that's not true because philosophy is neccesary to construct valid tests, as for instance your example of using the philosophy of science to test quantum mechanics. If you don't know that results are the way to judge a theory (which is a philosophical insight) then you won't be able to establish the truth of QM being superior to NM.

What are you talking about? Since when do physicists use the philosophy of science to construct experiments? Do you know anything about the philosophy of science? How would a scientists use Kuhn to construct an experiment of any kind? You are talking out your ass. You don't know anything about the philosophy of science or science in general and yet because you believe in philosophy the same as most people believe in religion you are willing to lie about it to defend it. Grow up!

And yet I've given you links to those that do exactly that.

And I have asked you to repost those links. What's the matter? Don't know how to use copy/paste?

By whether it makes logical sense given obvious moral axioms like self-ownership. I've explai