A child (Science) greater than its parent (Philosophy) ?

[Gees]

On 8/27/2021 at 7:40 PM, studiot said:

These statements were qualified eg 'can turn to crap'

Before your statements

were unqualified ie they were absolute, despite your protestation to the contrary.

If valid, that means they must apply to all Science and All Philosophy.

Bullshit. This idea of "valid" is ridiculous as it has little application to reality and none to truth. I suspect you would like to idealize reality and turn it into a model that fits your rules. (Plato is not the only one who has that problem.)

The Plague is a highly contagious deadly disease -- truth. Some people when exposed to the Plague do not get it and/or do not die -- truth. Does that negate the Plague as a highly contagious deadly disease?

Men grow beards -- truth. If a woman grows a beard does that invalidate her as a woman?

I have no idea where your thoughts of "absolute" and counterexamples come from, but they are idealized nonsense.

On 8/27/2021 at 7:40 PM, studiot said:

Now I offered you a counterexample concerning concrete and you eventually say

Whilst claiming there was no counterexample, instead of asking what I meant if you don't know a dammed thing about that subject.

Is that good Philosophy or godd Science or what ?

It is not good Philosophy and it is not good Science. It is piss poor communication, so I will apologize for my part in that very bad communication.

 

On 8/27/2021 at 7:40 PM, studiot said:

Now I actually made it quite as plain as I could that I was offering a counterexample by writing underneath the second quote of your work in this post

However since you don't understand concrete (nothing wrong with that, there's lot's of things I don't understand) and also since you have ameliorated your original absolute statement to a more qualified status I will offer you a different counter example to both.

For most of human history Astronomy and Astro navigation has rested on a false premise, yet functioned extremely well and continues to do so to this day, even after the premise was corrected by Copernicus.
Science continues to work with the known-to-be-false premise of the astral sphere because it produces such accurate results so easily compared to the work of measuring or calculating the real situation.

There are in fact many such known false models in daily use in Science for much the same reasons.

So what you are saying is that a premise does not need to be true; it can be false as long as it works and does what we require of it. Philosophy is not therefore necessary.

Congratulations studiot. Religion will be so happy, because I think you just validated "God".

Gee

[beecee]

46 minutes ago, Gees said:

So what you are saying is that a premise does not need to be true; it can be false as long as it works and does what we require of it. Philosophy is not therefore necessary.

A scientific theory or model, is not necessarilly after or searching for truth and/or reality. It is a useful, mathematically supported theory based on current evidence, that describes a certain situation. eg: GR and gravity being spacetime geometry.eg: But we also know that GR does not tell us anything about the core of BH's and the instant of the BB, and as such, we are consequently ignorant of the true nature of gravity.

Philosophy while being at the foundations of science, [the scientific method] is more appropo to asking why, as per the following excellent 7.5 minute video...

 

Philosophy while asking questions, very seldom answers them...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.[3][4] Such questions are often posed as problems[5][6] to be studied or resolved. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BCE),[7][8] others dispute this story,[9][10] arguing that Pythagoreans merely claimed use of a preexisting term.[11] Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

Edited September 7, 2021 by beecee

[Gees]

On 9/7/2021 at 12:39 AM, beecee said:

A scientific theory or model, is not necessarilly after or searching for truth and/or reality. It is a useful, mathematically supported theory based on current evidence, that describes a certain situation. 

Beecee, I can't believe that you actually wrote the above. I know that you have a serious bias against religion, and it became clear to me, while reading the other thread about science and philosophy, that you can not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. But how could you not know that your statements are almost the same thing that religion would believe?

Read the following where I changed just two words:

A religious theory or model, is not necessarilly after or searching for truth and/or reality. It is a useful, faith supported theory based on current evidence, that describes a certain situation. 

The thinking in your statement is exactly like the thinking that religion uses to promote the "God" idea. It is the same kind of thinking that validated drowning "witches", because it solved the problem of witches and made everyone else feel satisfied and self-righteous. No truth was required, no examining of the premises, no philosophy -- it just had to work. Well, Beecee, logic does not change by subject matter, so what is good for science is also good for religion, which would be why I stated that Studio's logic validated "God".
 

Quote

 

Philosophy while being at the foundations of science, [the scientific method] is more appropo to asking why, as per the following excellent 7.5 minute video...

 

 

Yes, I have seen this video many times and even used his examples to help me explain some aspects of consciousness. Feynman was brilliant, but had a bad attitude toward philosophy, which is kind of funny because he was very much a philosopher. Did you know that he took at least one philosophy class when he was young? He took his brilliant mind to an academic philosophy class which turned him totally against philosophy. He never got over it. I can understand his attitude because my first philosophy class gave me a similar disregard for academic philosophy, although I believe there are some classes that are worthwhile and taught well.

 

Quote

 

Philosophy while asking questions, very seldom answers them...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.

 

I don't believe this for a minute. It looks like you cherry picked, adlibbed and generally corrupted what Wiki had to say.

Considering the bias that I have read in your posts, this is not surprising. You can't tell the difference between religion and philosophy and talked about "absolute truth" with regard to philosophy, so I know you are clueless on this subject. Truth is subjective and is not "absolute" -- that would be either religion or maybe idealism.

Gee

 

 

Studiot;

Because you asked me to explain what I see as the differences between truth and facts and how that relates to this topic, I wrote the following: 

I have spent the last week, or so, trying to verbalize how I see the difference between philosophy and science; it has not been easy. I think that a lot of the miscommunications and misunderstandings between us have been caused by very different ideas of what science and philosophy do, so I thought it would be helpful to clarify.

My thoughts are that most people in science forums divide philosophy and science by the physical and the non-physical; the physical (real) being science and the non-physical (imaginings, ideas, ethics, etc.) being philosophy. Or they divide them by subject matter, such as ethics is obviously philosophy and mathematics is obviously science. Is some of this familiar to you? 

I think that Russell's explanation is a lot better and more accurate; science is what we do know; philosophy is what we don't know. Why is that? I am sure that some people believe that science knows what it is doing because it is superior or advanced, and philosophy does not know because it is inferior or confused -- this is nonsense. Earlier I stated that philosophy studies truth and science studies facts -- this is the biggest reason for the differences between these disciplines. Truth is subjective; facts are objective -- so truth (philosophy) is at the beginning of the process (where the observation, idea, or experience starts) and fact (science) is at the end (after confirmation or collaboration).

Because truth is subjective, it can change because of perspective, time, and/or circumstance -- so truth can almost always be countered. It is rare to find a truth that is also objective, which makes it damned difficult to know anything for certain or come to any consensus in our conclusions. Hence, philosophy is what we don't know -- yet.

So how can we know facts? Well, philosophy took the liberty of "establishing" certain truths to make them easier to deal with, so technically these truths are made-up. We took a one-to-one association of objects and ideas and called it counting, then we created numbers and then math, which allowed us to do all kinds of calculating. We established measures of liquid, distance, weight, volume, etc., and used numbers to measure many things. We broke down time into increments that allowed us a detailed measure of time. We established directional words like north and south, inside and outside, left and right, up and down, etc. With these objective truths that we actually created, or established, we could finally have a solid foundation for science and learn things that can be known. Hence, science is what we know.

So it looks like science is an advancement of philosophy, and maybe does not need philosophy any more. Many people think this, but the problem here is that facts do NOT necessarily give us truth. For example: There was a hundred dollar bill in my hand that transferred  to your hand -- that is the fact of what happened. So what happened? Did I give you money? Did we complete a contract? Did you steal it from me? What is the truth?

Facts require interpretation and seldom, if ever, stand alone. Since science has become the "answer man" and philosophy has pretty much been removed from consideration, we are starting to learn just how dependent facts are on philosophy and truth. Just watch the evening news or see an advertisement; you will be inundated with facts, but will you see any truth? Facts are easy to manipulate because they do not stand alone and do not give us truth. 

These are some of the reasons why I think that philosophy and science are necessary to each other and interdependent. Although I can see why people think that philosophy is the beginning or base that started the process, but is no longer necessary, that is rather short sighted. Every new discovery is another beginning, every improved understanding is another beginning, every question that is answered prompts two or three new questions, which are two or three new beginnings. The only way that philosophy will ever become obsolete is when there is no new knowledge, no new discoveries, no new beginnings.

By the way, it is not necessary to be a scientist in order to experiment and it is not necessary to be a philosopher in order to experience -- both disciplines use both methods. Facts can and do expose us to new truths and truths can and do uncover new facts.

Gee

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Gees said:

Beecee, I can't believe that you actually wrote the above. I know that you have a serious bias against religion, and it became clear to me, while reading the other thread about science and philosophy, that you can not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. But how could you not know that your statements are almost the same thing that religion would believe?

Believe it, I certainly wrote it. And I actually have no bias against religion, none at all,[my wife is very religious and we have been married 42 years now] Any arguments I have against religion generally arise when fanatical religious folk, try and compare religion to science and attempt to denigrate it. Then I may let them have both barrels. 

And yes, I do see religion similar to philosophy in many ways, and certainly much closer to it then science. Both ask questions like what is reality, with religion of course answering that with unscientific supernatural answers. I also see similarities between religion and some philosophers themselves, particularly on the question of this truth and/or reality that they rattle on about. https://www.learnreligions.com/religion-vs-philosophy-250711

3 hours ago, Gees said:

A religious theory or model, is not necessarilly after or searching for truth and/or reality. It is a useful, faith supported theory based on current evidence, that describes a certain situation. 

The thinking in your statement is exactly like the thinking that religion uses to promote the "God" idea.

If you are having difficulty in determining the difference between faith [with no evidence] and scientific theories based on observational and experimental evidence then you have a problem, probably beyond my explaining it.

3 hours ago, Gees said:

The thinking in your statement is exactly like the thinking that religion uses to promote the "God" idea. It is the same kind of thinking that validated drowning "witches", because it solved the problem of witches and made everyone else feel satisfied and self-righteous. No truth was required, no examining of the premises, no philosophy -- it just had to work. Well, Beecee, logic does not change by subject matter, so what is good for science is also good for religion, which would be why I stated that Studio's logic validated "God".

???? 🤪🙄 What? See my previous answer. Wow!

On 8/12/2021 at 3:02 AM, studiot said:

I have explained several times in this thread that 'greater' does not mean better. It means 'of larger size' that by some measure or other.

In the case of Science outgrowing Philosophy, I suggest the scope and extent of scientific knowledge now well exceeds that of philosophic.

Bingo!! Personally I have never inferred that philosophy is better then science...it is the foundation of science of course. Your second statement is also 100%, let's make that 99% true, and exactly what Professor Krauss infers in his book, "A Universe from Nothing" Philosophers today seem so thin skinned!  

[Gees]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Believe it, I certainly wrote it. And I actually have no bias against religion, none at all,[my wife is very religious and we have been married 42 years now] Any arguments I have against religion generally arise when fanatical religious folk, try and compare religion to science and attempt to denigrate it. Then I may let them have both barrels. 

Beecee, this is a lie. Maybe you are trying to rationalize something that you don't understand, but it ends up being a lie. The truth is that religion studies the supernatural and calls it "God". You have serious problems with the idea of the supernatural and have stated it repeatedly all over this forum for years. 

The only conclusion that I can reach is that you are superstitious and in denial. If you are taking these beliefs of yours and seeing them as comparable to philosophy, then it is clear as to why you don't like philosophy either. This is the only conclusion that the historical facts in your years of posts can support.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

If you are having difficulty in determining the difference between faith [with no evidence] and scientific theories based on observational and experimental evidence then you have a problem, probably beyond my explaining it.

???? 🤪🙄 What? See my previous answer. Wow!

There is difference and there is sameness -- both are beliefs -- no matter how those beliefs are formulated. The logic of the thinking applies to both of them equally. It is the logic that flew right over your head. 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Bingo!! Personally I have never inferred that philosophy is better then science...it is the foundation of science of course. Your second statement is also 100%, let's make that 99% true, and exactly what Professor Krauss infers in his book, "A Universe from Nothing" Philosophers today seem so thin skinned!  

This is what Studiot stated:

"In the case of Science outgrowing Philosophy, I suggest the scope and extent of scientific knowledge now well exceeds that of philosophic."

So that would be why you earn a Ph D in the various subjects of science? That would be a Doctor of Philosophy? Right?

Ooh. Maybe one day I can earn a Sc D in philosophy? That would be a Doctor of Science. Right?

Beecee, if you don't understand the above, ask someone.

Gee

PS I don't think that I have a problem being too thin skinned; my problem is different. After a few years in this forum witnessing so much ignorance based in bias in the subjects that I knew, I began to wonder about the other subjects. If I don't know about a subject, would I be able to tell if ideas were slanted because of bias? No. So I lost my faith and trust in this forum and left. I check back once in a while, but I no longer play here.

 

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Gees said:

Beecee, this is a lie.

Is it? I'll leave you to your philosophical devices and your associated delusions. No lies matey, simply facts and views rubbishing your own philosophical claptrap.

6 minutes ago, Gees said:

This is what Studiot stated:

This is the factaul statement by Studiot  I was answering, if it is at all any of your business....

"I have explained several times in this thread that 'greater' does not mean better. It means 'of larger size' that by some measure or other.

In the case of Science outgrowing Philosophy, I suggest the scope and extent of scientific knowledge now well exceeds that of philosophic".

 

Obviously he has a far better handle on both science and philosophy then you have...Try learning, instead of preaching.

 

[Gees]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Is it? I'll leave you to your philosophical devices and your associated delusions. No lies matey, simply facts and views rubbishing your own philosophical claptrap.

Yes it is. Philosophers study truth and lies, so it is probably a bad idea to lie to a philosopher. You probably don't want to know this, but the lie is very obvious -- so I am not the only person, who caught it.

I am just the only person, who said something about it.

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

This is the factaul statement by Studiot  I was answering, if it is at all any of your business....

"I have explained several times in this thread that 'greater' does not mean better. It means 'of larger size' that by some measure or other.

In the case of Science outgrowing Philosophy, I suggest the scope and extent of scientific knowledge now well exceeds that of philosophic".

 

Obviously he has a far better handle on both science and philosophy then you have...Try learning, instead of preaching.

 

Sorry about this. I am not used to this program that combines posts.

Gee

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, Gees said:

Yes it is. Philosophers study truth and lies, so it is probably a bad idea to lie to a philosopher. You probably don't want to know this, but the lie is very obvious -- so I am not the only person, who caught it.

I am just the only person, who said something about it.

Sorry about this. I am not used to this program that combines posts.

Gee

Be as sorry as you like, the crux of the matter is you are delusional.

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."

Henry Louis Mencken. 

Let me reiterate...I have nothing against religion at all, other then it is unscientific, and have nothing against religious people, until they have the audacity of deriding science.

If that offends you, and if my comment re religion and philosophy having much in common offends you, then so be it. I suggest you take an aspro and have a good lie down. 🙄 

On 7/9/2021 at 6:00 PM, studiot said:

The scope and reach of Science has far outstripped that of Philosophy in modern times.

Yes, totally agree, and supported by many others including Krauss, Hawking, Degrasse-Tyson, and Weinberg. 

On 8/26/2021 at 4:12 AM, Gees said:

Not sure why you are referencing this -- the Bible is a history book(s). I have never read any history book that does not contain lies. Do you have a point?

 

 

Not sure what you want here. Philosophy deals in truths, science deals in facts. Can facts exist without truths? No.

[1]The bible in actual fact is no more a history book then Goldilocks and the three bears. It is in fact a book based on unevidenced mythical nonsense, written by a group of obscure men, in an obscure age.That is a statement of fact not a criticism per se.

[2] Philosophy deals in the abstract and morality: science deals in facts; but one out of three ain't bad!!! 

Edited September 9, 2021 by beecee

[studiot]

Oh dear.

@Gees  and @beecee

I was going to say that I am glad you two have managed to discuss my words without actually swopping red cards, but I see that one appeared a few posts back.

Since neither of you seem to have fully appreciated my words (probably my fault) I will level the playing field and explain my words further.

 

'greater' is definitely a scientific term used to purely indicate size, as opposed to any value judgement such as 'better'.

Indeed I gave a semi scientific (geographic) example in some place names.

I have now realised that the obvious examples are from the life sciences where greater and lesser abound.

For example the greater spotted woodpecker  and the lesser spotted woodpecker.

No implication is made that the smaller bird is in any way 'inferior'.

 

Now to substantiate my claim that today the buld of scientific knowledge exceeds that of the philosophic.

I do not think the name of the academic qualifications awarded by some older institutions is an appropriate measure.

The number of DPhil  awarded by say Cambridge for scientific studies is greater than the number for philosophic studies.

But then newer institutions award qualifications that reflect their scientific nature. BMedSci, MPharm, Dsc and so forth.

Many of these do not have a philosophy department.

And, of course, we should also look at other academic systems.

Central Europe used to aspire to Privat Dozent as its pinnacle qualification, before professor.

OK so that deals with academic qualifiacations.

 

What about output ?

It used to be said that the were 7 miles of shelves of  dissertations on"the influence of Shakespeare on Coleridge" at Oxford.
This of course is English literature, not Science or Pholosophy.

But today think of the library space devoted to Scientific subjects v the space devoted to philosophy and also the number of students in each discipline.
 

Now look to the wider world.
How about the warehouses full of scientific specimens belonging to the many museums ?
Or the stores of records from scientific observatories around the world, from ice core logs to oceanographic measurements to atronomical observations to mineral and oil company prospcting to meteorological data to genetic studies to flora and fauna observations to ... the list just goes on and on.

Is far as I know the corresponding list attributable to Philosophy is minute.

So more people are engaged in obtaining and processing more data every day in Science than Philosophy.

So Science is now the 'greater' activity.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Oh dear.

@Gees  and @beecee

I was going to say that I am glad you two have managed to discuss my words without actually swopping red cards, but I see that one appeared a few posts back.

Since neither of you seem to have fully appreciated my words (probably my fault) I will level the playing field and explain my words further.

Yes, my apologies for my part, but I find it hard to accept being talked down by someone and called a liar. I also understood what you have said and agree inmost parts.