Can there be any intelligent science pursued without any philosophy?

[needimprovement]

Can any human do anything peculiar only to humans without any kind of intelligent thinking involved, or according to any criteria of intelligent thinking involved?

[Moontanman]

What sort of behaviors do humans do that only humans do? I can only think of one...

[ydoaPs]

What sort of behaviors do humans do that only humans do? I can only think of one...

Walk on stilts.

[Moontanman]

Walk on stilts.

 

 

Stilts are just tools, advanced tools I guess but just tools none the less and animals make tools....

[Mr Skeptic]

What sort of behaviors do humans do that only humans do? I can only think of one...

 

Juggle?

[Fuzzwood]

Invent.

[Moontanman]

Juggle?

 

 

Cute but I'll treat it as serious, juggling is nothing more than manipulating objects, indeed rather advanced but still just manipulating objects, many animals can manipulate objects...

 

Invent.

 

 

Good guess but no ring, animals can also come up with novel solutions to problems.

[Mr Skeptic]

Cute but I'll treat it as serious, juggling is nothing more than manipulating objects, indeed rather advanced but still just manipulating objects, many animals can manipulate objects...

 

I think its a question of extent. Animals can manipulate objects, yes, but I've never seen one juggle. Remember that building a nuclear reactor is also nothing more than manipulating objects, it is just a question of degree.

 

I think that actually what makes us special is our language that can communicate abstract thoughts in great detail, in combination with attributes common to various animals (intelligent, social, dexterous).

[iNow]

So can other animals, Mr S.

 

 

I, too, would welcome clarity on "what can only humans do."

[Moontanman]

I think its a question of extent. Animals can manipulate objects, yes, but I've never seen one juggle. Remember that building a nuclear reactor is also nothing more than manipulating objects, it is just a question of degree.

 

I agree, most human behaviors are just a matter of degree between us and animals...

 

 

I think that actually what makes us special is our language that can communicate abstract thoughts in great detail, in combination with attributes common to various animals (intelligent, social, dexterous).

 

You are close to what i have in mind, but animals also communicate, what we do is just a matter of degree but we do something with those abstract thoughts that no other animal can do... We record abstract thoughts outside our minds, writing is what we do that is unique, IMHO...

Edited October 6, 2010 by Moontanman

[Mr Skeptic]

You are close to what i have in mind, but animals also communicate, what we do is just a matter of degree but we do something with those abstract thoughts that no other animal can do... We record abstract thoughts outside our minds, writing is what we do that is unique, IMHO...

 

Using the environment for memory or communication is also not unique to humans. Ants leave pheromone trails to guide the other ants, various animals scent-mark their territory. Anyhow, I think we were "special" before the invention of writing. Though to be fair I'd have to include cave paintings, so maybe not.

[Moontanman]

Using the environment for memory or communication is also not unique to humans. Ants leave pheromone trails to guide the other ants, various animals scent-mark their territory. Anyhow, I think we were "special" before the invention of writing. Though to be fair I'd have to include cave paintings, so maybe not.

 

 

Ants leave pheromone trails with no thought of the other ants following them, it's not a conscious decision any more than a dog pissing on a pole is a conscious decision to add his info to the info of the last dog who visited. Humans record abstract thought to pass down info to later generations and yes I would have to say that cave paintings was close to the beginning of this behavior. I can see how this behavior could have evolved from a simple need to leave marks on rocks to let others know you are here but the idea of recording complex and or abstract thought is a purely human thing...

Edited October 6, 2010 by Moontanman

[Sisyphus]

I think that a dog pissing on a pole probably is a conscious decision to add its own scent.

 

I don't really know what the op is asking, though. Depending on definitions, "unique to humans" could be anywhere from everything to nothing we do.

[iNow]

Unique to humans? How about drawing an accurate self-portrait which looks like a human?

[padren]

Unique to humans? How about drawing an accurate self-portrait which looks like a human?

 

Do any animals utilize "decoys" of any kind? I can't think of any, but if so much as a spider makes a decoy in a web good enough to fool prey/predator, I think that would constitute a self-portrait. Using a term like "accurate" implies similarity up to a point, and fooling prey/predators would be a fair measure I think even if we could see the difference.

 

Anyone know of any animals that do this?

 

 

Also, why is this thread titled "Can there be any intelligent science pursued without any philosophy?" when the post has a very different question?

Can any human do anything peculiar only to humans without any kind of intelligent thinking involved, or according to any criteria of intelligent thinking involved?

I don't know biology well enough, but I imagine we must excrete, create or burble some sort of something other critters don't.

 

The funny thing about evolving on the same rock as every other thing we've ever encountered: all our tricks are pretty much new twists on old tricks.

 

 

 

Speaking of funny, do any animals engage in humor? They definitely get excited, have fun, apparently laugh and do play clever tricks on each other, but is the derived satisfaction the result of humor?

[iNow]

Do any animals utilize "decoys" of any kind? I can't think of any, but if so much as a spider makes a decoy in a web good enough to fool prey/predator, I think that would constitute a self-portrait.

Yes, but if drawn accurately it would not look like a human.

 

 

Speaking of funny, do any animals engage in humor? They definitely get excited, have fun, apparently laugh and do play clever tricks on each other, but is the derived satisfaction the result of humor?

I recall reading that apes and monkeys, and many other primates do this, but cannot recall where. If needed, I can spend some time swinging with the google stick to see if I can find it.

[Echion11]

Only humans have a sense for beauty which is not triggered by the need to reproduce.

[iNow]

Only humans have a sense for beauty which is not triggered by the need to reproduce.

I think it's rather possible that you are mistaken with this assertion. Do you have any evidence which you could provide in its favor?

[lemur]

Back to the OP: no, no science intelligent or otherwise can be pursued without some level of philosophizing. Even discussing and deciding what science means or can mean requires philosophizing. Obviously there is a timeless authoritarian dream of establishing meanings, definitions, protocols, etc. in a way that requires no creative input or critical thought, but that dream is applied to all types of ways of knowing, not just science. E.g. Law, religion/theology/spirituality, history, practical skills, etc. all have both authoritarian and non-authoritarian approaches possible. Of course, authoritarians will insist that the authoritarian approach is the only true approach to anything, but that's because that is part of authoritarian philosophy, or rather "anti-philosophical practice."

Edited October 7, 2010 by lemur

[needimprovement]

There are philosophers of science, Bas van Fraassen for one, who are empiricists; they say science is just a game, in which scientists construct models or pictures to try to make sense of the world around them, but the models bear no relation to what reality is. I don't hold to this view, by the way. (The empiricists cite history and how physical "laws" (theories) change, e.g. no more caloric, no more ether, etc.)

[ydoaPs]

Can science be done without philosophy being involved? That depends on if you think robots can do philosophy.

[lemur]

There are philosophers of science, Bas van Fraassen for one, who are empiricists; they say science is just a game, in which scientists construct models or pictures to try to make sense of the world around them, but the models bear no relation to what reality is. I don't hold to this view, by the way. (The empiricists cite history and how physical "laws" (theories) change, e.g. no more caloric, no more ether, etc.)

 

This whole debate hinges on defining what is meant by "bear no relation." Realities and their representations are indeed radically distinct from one another at the material level. This is the meaning of Rene' Magritte's famous painting, "ceci n'est pas une pipe." I.e. a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. Similarly words are not the things they name and, likewise, scientific models are not the realities they model. However, this does not mean that a one model's explanatory or predictive power can't be stronger than another's. The issue is whether you equate the representational power of a model with the model "bearing a relation to what reality is." Modeling takes place in the realm of theory, reality in the realm of practice. A simulation may resemble what it is supposed to simulate, but that doesn't mean it functions in any way like what it simulates.

[needimprovement]

To shift this discussion a bit to a particular situation.

 

Was talking with a philosophy department chair who is worried that some of his philosophy courses will be eliminated from the liberal arts curriculum and replaced by science ones.

 

Going by the title of this thread, what kind of advice or solid reasons can one give this beleaguered professor?