Is Philosophy crap?

[MonDie]

Aha! I don't need to learn the details of relativity because it's been contemplated already! (see my last post)

 

From Zeno's point of view, the classical concept of absolute time was not logically sound, and special relativity (or something like it) is a logical necessity, not just an empirical fact. It's even been suggested that if people had taken Zeno's paradoxes more seriously they might have arrived at something like special relativity centuries ago, just on logical grounds.

 

mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm

[PeterJ]

It was a good point, and a fascinating one, and I'm not sure why anyone would be so scornful.

[Ben Banana]

I laughed at this, but... bleh.

[forufes]

philosophy is the highest and most basic logic, it's the ability to go long distances back and forth between thoughts and conclusions using logic.

 

however, a characteristic of philosophy is that it is useless, as in it doesn't produce well-defined outputs, it's the realm of all logic half cooked, once it's something systematic and clear, it becomes a field of its own or a science.

 

it's kinda like mathematics, useless in itself and formless, with no direct impact on our lives, but its bits and pieces are used in all practical fields of our lives.

[PeterJ]

Why do western academic thinkers always conclude that philosophy produces no well-defined outputs when it is so blindingly obvious that it does?

 

It completely baffles me.

 

Its result is that all positve metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. This result is well-defined and is well-known to almost everyone who studies philosophy. It is only that western thinkers will insist on seeing this as a failure rather than a success. They don't know what to make of this result, so would rather say that it is not a result. But it is the result that philosophy always produces, always has and always will. It's not going to go away.

 

How can anyone say that this is not a well-defined result? Why would anyone say this? By saying this we reduce philosophy to (as forufes says) a useless, formless discipline with no impact on our lives. Why would anyone want to do that? The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics actually begins by stating that metaphysics is useless.

 

Why? Because the alternative would be to take religion seriously. Can't have that.

 

I despair of the idiocy of our current western philosophy, with its insistence that philosophy is useless. It is only if we refuse to accept its result that philosophy is rendered useless. If we treat it as mathematics and practice it with honesty then it could not possible be more useful or have a greater impact on our lives.

 

Lack of courage seems to be the main problem, that and entrenched preconceptions and a lack of interest in the literature of the wisdom traditions.

 

You won't find this depressing view of philosophy in Buddhism, where it is used to logically prove the truth of the doctrine. It can do this because it produces a well-defined mathematical/dialectical result, a result that many people dislike so much they prefer to say is not a result and thus render philosophy useless.

 

One day western academia will learn how to do philosophy, presumably, but for now we must be content with footnotes to Plato and people who are so misled about it they have to ask whether philosophy is c..p or not. Yes it is, if you mean modern professional philosophy in the west. Try reading the Journal of Consciousness Studies for a few years for the evidence. But this is just philosophy badly practiced. Badly practiced physics is c..p as well.

 

It makes me mad that we still teach kids such discredited rubbish about philosophy. Physics had the guts to bite the bullet and move on when its results began to become incomprehensible a century ago. What happened in philosophy as a result of this paradigmatic change of scientific worldview? Absolutely nothing at all. It sleeps on gathering cobwebs in odd corners of universities, eating up the budget while claiming that its problems are intractable, its results ill-defined, its purpose uncertain and its progress indiscernable.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Rant over.

Edited June 8, 2012 by PeterJ

[owl]

Try reading the Journal of Consciousness Studies for a few years for the evidence. But this is just philosophy badly practiced.

Please elaborate on your opinion that the JCS is an example of "philosophy badly practiced."

Thanks.

[PeterJ]

It's a good journal and I'm glad I subscribed to it for a while, to catch up with current thinking. But when was the last time the subject made any progress? After a while I found myself reading the same article over and over again with just the author's name changed.

 

I would point to the endless repetition of discredited philosophical ideas. I would point to the many utterly naive 'scientific' articles, those that take no account of philosophy and logic. I would point to the failure to imagine even a tentative satisfactory solution for the problem of consciousness. I would point to the dishonesty of so many articles, (what Chalmers calls the 'sleights of hand'), and lastly to the failure of research and imagination that leaves the problem of consciousness a bewildering mystery. I have never once heard it mentioned that it is not a bewildering mystery according to the Upanishads.

 

To be fair, many contributors do not claim to be philosophers, and some claim that philosophy has nothing to say about consciousness so don't bother with it. But this does not reduce the amount of bad philosophy appearing in the journal.

 

I would say that bad philosophy is the only cause of the problem of consciousness.

 

Yes, it's an extreme view. But any subscriber can vouch for the pointlessness of most of the articles. They may be useful if one wants to review the state of play in the field, but they are usually useless in the search for solutions to any important problems.

 

I have only ever seen one article in JCS offering a systematic solution for consciousness, a beautifully written piece by Edward Barkin explaining the doctrine of dependent origination. It sank without trace.

 

I haven't read it for a few years but I don't imagine it's changed in the meantime. If it has I take all this back. If not, then JCS is for beginners.

 

This is not arrogance, it is infuriation that professional philosophy is in such a sorry state. I admire physicists for their boldness of thought, albeit it is forced on them by the data, but feel that they are being badly let down by the philosophers, leaving theoretical physics with nowhere to go for a fundamental theory.

 

 

 

 

[MonDie]

I never took a philosophy class on logic, but, on Wikipedia, I read that logic is a formal science.

 

EDIT: However, doesn't logic only partially comprise empirical science, and isn't the sum greater than its parts? Logic makes hypotheses, but science makes hypotheses and demonstrates their validity through manipulation of cause-and-effect. This is not to say that philosophical claims are always less certain than scientific claims, but it does imply that that's generally the case.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[PeterJ]

I never took a philosophy class on logic, but, on Wikipedia, I read that logic is a formal science.

Thanks or mentioning this. I'm having this argument elsewhere. At least Wiki is my side.

 

EDIT: However, doesn't logic only partially comprise empirical science, and isn't the sum greater than its parts? Logic makes hypotheses, but science makes hypotheses and demonstrates their validity through manipulation of cause-and-effect. This is not to say that philosophical claims are always less certain than scientific claims, but it does imply that that's generally the case.

They have equivalent methods for deciding theories, and they seem to be equally reliable. We can test a theory empirically or by using logic. We do not have to build a rocket with a blunt front end and test it to know that it is not a good idea. It's horses for courses. There is no evidence that the results of metaphysics are any less certain than those of science, As most of the latter rely on induction the reverse in probably more true. There's always more than one way of looking at things.

 

I see what you mean about the sum being greater than its parts. Because they are parts they are partial. But this is not yet the sum. As well as the study of observational data and of the reuslts of logical analysis there is the study of direct experience. Only the three together would be the sum, and thus able to produce a theory of the whole.

[immortal]

 

They have equivalent methods for deciding theories, and they seem to be equally reliable. We can test a theory empirically or by using logic. We do not have to build a rocket with a blunt front end and test it to know that it is not a good idea. It's horses for courses. There is no evidence that the results of metaphysics are any less certain than those of science, As most of the latter rely on induction the reverse in probably more true. There's always more than one way of looking at things.

 

 

Building a simulation model to test for alternative designs based on an existing system is part of an engineering process and it is based on observations. I don't think we can apply the same validation processes for metaphysical theories because much of its theories are unobservable and deciding a theory based on logic alone without any observational data is never realiable.

[PeterJ]

Do you not think that every metaphysical theory relies to some extent on observations, and every scientific theory relies to some extent on logic? I cannot think of one that does not rely on both. But if there are any then your objection would apply to it. Likewise, a scientific theory based on observation alone, if such a thing were possible, would be unreliable.

 

But it cannot be a coincidence that metaphysical theories that rely mainly on logic never contradict scientific theories that rely mainly on observations. It suggests that both methods are reliable, used properly.

[immortal]

Do you not think that every metaphysical theory relies to some extent on observations, and every scientific theory relies to some extent on logic? I cannot think of one that does not rely on both. But if there are any then your objection would apply to it. Likewise, a scientific theory based on observation alone, if such a thing were possible, would be unreliable.

 

But it cannot be a coincidence that metaphysical theories that rely mainly on logic never contradict scientific theories that rely mainly on observations. It suggests that both methods are reliable, used properly.

 

Take your metaphysical theory for example, metaphysical questions are mainly concerned with ontology, questions are normally like what is the fundamental nature of the world, is space fundamental? or field? what is the world made up of? what is its true nature? Now you say the world is a unity, what is unity? do you yourself got any idea as to what you're talking about? I cannot observe it and I don't know what the heck unity means.

 

So just because someone is talking about something which no one really understands and uses the names of great scientists like schroedinger and intellectual persons like shankara doesn't mean the theory is correct and testified by logic alone. The knowledge that it adds to my database is absolutely zero. There has been no increase of knowledge, there has been no addition of information just redundant information repeating the same things calling it by different names like brahman or unity or Tao. So if there is no observational data and no experimental data then we cannot really know whether what we are talking about as any value or is it full of rubbish and B.S.

 

I think metaphysicians should stop relying only on logic and start doing some experiments to testify the doctrine of transcendental realism so that we can truly know what the world is really made of.

[PeterJ]

Take your metaphysical theory for example, metaphysical questions are mainly concerned with ontology, questions are normally like what is the fundamental nature of the world, is space fundamental? or field? what is the world made up of? what is its true nature? Now you say the world is a unity, what is unity? do you yourself got any idea as to what you're talking about? I cannot observe it and I don't know what the heck unity means.

Try meditation. It's the only way to know. But it can be established as a plausible theory in logic. Meditation includes intellectual analysis, but also goes beyond it.

 

If you don't know what is meant by 'unity', then why do you argue that I'm wrong about this? 'Unity' would be a synonym for what the Upanishads call a 'whole' or 'perfection'. It is relevant that 'Yoga' derives from the term for 'to yoke' or 'to unify'. I'm happy to talk about this, but maybe this thread is not the right place.

 

So just because someone is talking about something which no one really understands and uses the names of great scientists like schroedinger and intellectual persons like shankara doesn't mean the theory is correct and testified by logic alone.

Very true. It is testable in logic if (iff) it is testable in logic. Even then that would not establish whether it is true. Logic may well establish that it is plausible, however, and we can do no better for scientific theories. Who says nobody understands anyway? I do to a fair extent. I've just been sent an excellent book by Don Salmon - Yoga psychology and the Transformation of Consciousness (Paragon Books 2007). It's completely excellent. He certainly understands. Thousands of people understand. I could write a vast book list, and that's only people who have written books.

 

The knowledge that it adds to my database is absolutely zero.

That's because you do not understand what I have been proposing. If you ask the right questions your database may expand. I know what I'm talking about, even if my communication skills are dodgy and I am plagued by impatience.

 

There has been no increase of knowledge, there has been no addition of information just redundant information repeating the same things calling it by different names like brahman or unity or Tao. So if there is no observational data and no experimental data then we cannot really know whether what we are talking about as any value or is it full of rubbish and B.S.

Of course there is experimental data. What do you think mysticism is all about? It is simply experimental philosophy. Do you think that people like Don Salmon, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-tsu, the Buddha and their like have no exprimental data? That would make them some of the greatest liars in history. But anyone can go and check their claims empirically.

 

I think metaphysicians should stop relying only on logicand start doing some experiments to testify the doctrine of transcendental realism so that we can truly know what the world is really made of.

It is not 'transcendental realism', which is a mightily confusing phrase. 'Objective idealism' is better, but again a little misleading. 'Nondualism' is one technical term. In metaphysics I like 'metaphysical neutralism', because it is not at all misleading.

 

But I can agree in a way. Metaphysics can prove that all world-views but this one are logically indefensible, and it can prove that this one is defensible, but it cannot prove it is true or bring much understanding of it. This is the eternal complaint of the sages against metaphysics, most notably made by the Buddha. But I think it makes sense to test the theory before commiting to the experimental practice, unless one is so full of faith one does not feel the need, and for this metaphysics is indespensible, as is physics. The internet is also very useful. Most people would want to know that a doctrine is consistent with the results of physics and metaphysics before considering spending much time checking it empirically. This one makes predictions and they can be tested, and I would say more about its predictions were it not that every time I try to talk to physicists about them they explode in indignation, so I'm having trouble establishing which are most interesting and how far they can be tested.

 

But things are changing. More and more I see researchers in physics and philosophy taking an interest in this other view. Tends to be at the forefront of the field we see this interest emerging though, and I reckon we need another two generations before things really start to change.

[immortal]

Try meditation. It's the only way to know. But it can be established as a plausible theory in logic. Meditation includes intellectual analysis, but also goes beyond it.

 

What is the contribution of metaphysics here, meditational techniques are being practiced even before the advent of metaphysics. What is new here and what does metaphysics has to say about it. People are going to practice it anyway they don't really want that final word from a metaphysician. By stating meditation you seem to have argued in favor of my point that it is a waste of time to test theories based on logic alone and that it is highly unrealiable.

 

If you don't know what is meant by 'unity', then why do you argue that I'm wrong about this? 'Unity' would be a synonym for what the Upanishads call a 'whole' or 'perfection'. It is relevant that 'Yoga' derives from the term for 'to yoke' or 'to unify'. I'm happy to talk about this, but maybe this thread is not the right place.

 

Stop pretending that you know unity. If you really know what it is then can you give back life to a dead plant or can you teleport from one place to another or can you say what will happen in the future with your precognitive abilities. Now do you really know what unity is?

 

 

Very true. It is testable in logic if (iff) it is testable in logic. Even then that would not establish whether it is true. Logic may well establish that it is plausible, however, and we can do no better for scientific theories. Who says nobody understands anyway? I do to a fair extent. I've just been sent an excellent book by Don Salmon - Yoga psychology and the Transformation of Consciousness (Paragon Books 2007). It's completely excellent. He certainly understands. Thousands of people understand. I could write a vast book list, and that's only people who have written books.

 

Its only book knowledge, what about practical knowledge, where is the positive evidence for it. Even if you write 100 books about them you can hardly convince yourself then how can you convince others. If they truly understand what they're talking about then why don't they demonstrate their knowledge in public. The fact that no one is willing to demonstrate it shows that no one really understands it and that no one knows what they're talking about. I think they are not true philosophers they're just trying to earn respect by claiming too many things when they really doesn't deserve any respect what so ever.

 

This shows why the skill of doing experiments is more important than the metaphysical skills of logic. The problem with metaphysicians is that they stop at logic they never go on to put their theories to test. Without positive evidence one has no choice but to accept alternative natural and psychological explanations for mysticism without the need to invoke the concept of unity.

 

 

That's because you do not understand what I have been proposing. If you ask the right questions your database may expand. I know what I'm talking about, even if my communication skills are dodgy and I am plagued by impatience.

 

So far what you've been proposing is that there is a logical framework in support of mysticism. Before they used to accept things on faith for their practical commitment now you've established it in a rational way but its not enough to convince anyone.

 

 

Of course there is experimental data. What do you think mysticism is all about? It is simply experimental philosophy. Do you think that people like Don Salmon, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-tsu, the Buddha and their like have no exprimental data? That would make them some of the greatest liars in history. But anyone can go and check their claims empirically.

 

There is? What empirical data we have in this 21st century? If someone turns water into wine some two thousand years ago how can it be an experimental data in this 21st century. What knowledge do we really have? Can you repeat it now? I am not saying it is impossible to have empirical data but so far I have not seen anyone demonstrating with positive evidence for the existence of unity. Again by stating that one has to go and check their claims you've demonstrated that logic alone is very unrealiable to test any theory.

[PeterJ]

Okay Immortal - We're wasting our time. Clearly you have no interest in any of this stuff.

 

If you think your comment about turning water into wine is relevant here then I apologise for the fact that my posts are incomprehensible to you.

 

Oh Hell, I suppose I should have just replied.

 

What is the contribution of metaphysics here, meditational techniques are being practiced even before the advent of metaphysics. What is new here and what does metaphysics has to say about it. People are going to practice it anyway they don't really want that final word from a metaphysician. By stating meditation you seem to have argued in favor of my point that it is a waste of time to test theories based on logic alone and that it is highly unrealiable.

I have answered this before. Just because logic cannot establish truth does not mean it is useless. Scientific theories are also not true or false, just better or worse, useful and not useful and so forth. We don't say physics is pointless because of this. That would be daft.

 

Stop pretending that you know unity. If you really know what it is then can you give back life to a dead plant or can you teleport from one place to another or can you say what will happen in the future with your precognitive abilities. Now do you really know what unity is?

As a theoretical concept I know exactly what it is. Whether I know it as a phenomenon is my business. So no, don't send me your dead plants. And please stop accusing me of lying. I have never pretended to know anything. I am a philosopher, not a monk.

 

Its only book knowledge, what about practical knowledge, where is the positive evidence for it.?

Under your nose, as I've been saying for page after page.

 

Even if you write 100 books about them you can hardly convince yourself then how can you convince others.

You can't.

 

If they truly understand what they're talking about then why don't they demonstrate their knowledge in public.

They do.

 

The fact that no one is willing to demonstrate it shows that no one really understands it and that no one knows what they're talking about.

No. it demonstrates that you cannot understand what they are talking about.

 

I think they are not true philosophers they're just trying to earn respect by claiming too many things when they really doesn't deserve any respect what so ever.

Yes. I know this is your view. This is why our discussion is a complete waste of time. You never think to provide any argument.

 

This shows why the skill of doing experiments is more important than the metaphysical skills of logic. The problem with metaphysicians is that they stop at logic they never go on to put their theories to test. Without positive evidence one has no choice but to accept alternative natural and psychological explanations for mysticism without the need to invoke the concept of unity.

You seem to be living in some alternative reality. Have you ever tried to understand metaphysics, or examined how it is done? I'd recommend it.

 

So far what you've been proposing is that there is a logical framework in support of mysticism. Before they used to accept things on faith for their practical commitment now you've established it in a rational way but its not enough to convince anyone.

Of course not. Some people refuse to even think about it.

 

There is? What empirical data we have in this 21st century? If someone turns water into wine some two thousand years ago how can it be an experimental data in this 21st century. What knowledge do we really have? Can you repeat it now? I am not saying it is impossible to have empirical data but so far I have not seen anyone demonstrating with positive evidence for the existence of unity. Again by stating that one has to go and check their claims you've demonstrated that logic alone is very unrealiable to test any theory.

If we had tested the cosmology of Newton and found it to be correct, then we would have scientifically falsified Buddhist doctrine. This doctrine is therefore testable in the sciences. It is tested very day in the sciences. The only reason we don't notice this this is that it always passes. It makes predictions for time and space, phenomenology, consciousness studies and goodness knows what else.

 

Of course logic alone is insufficient to test any theory of reality. It's a necessary condition for such a theory that it be logically coherent, but not a sufficient one. This is not a criticism of anything, just a fact. Observation alone is not enough either, which is why solipsism is unfalsifiable and why scientific theories are not true or false.

 

To finally test a world-theory is not about plausibility but about knowledge. Knowing that a theory is plausible, or that it works, is not the same as knowing it is true. True knowledge is identical with its object, according to Aristotle, and is not found in calculations or observations. This does not make calculations and observations useless, of course not, it just places a limit on what we can learn from them. This is not a philosophical or scientific problem, it's just the way it is. It is also telling that the theory you so despise predicts this unfalsifiability, and would be falsified if solipsism were ever to be falsified. It also predicts all aother traditional philosophical problems, as I have explained a few times. If physics, given its current world-view, did not break down at the BB then this view would also be falsified. If time and space were found to be fundamental it would also be falsified. Etc etc.

 

There's masses of evidence, even before the evidence of experience. I know you can't see it, but fortunately this does not make it go away.

Edited June 15, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Okay Immortal - We're wasting our time. Clearly you have no interest in any of this stuff.

 

If you think your comment about turning water into wine is relevant here then I apologise for the fact that my posts are incomprehensible to you.

 

Oh Hell, I suppose I should have just replied.

 

You're trying to discuss about a thing which is inherently incomprehensible via dialectic or logic so obviously your posts about unity is incomprehensible to everyone and its a waste of time. The only thing we can discuss about it is to advice everyone not to discuss about it and you don't decide what my interests are.

 

I have answered this before. Just because logic cannot establish truth does not mean it is useless. Scientific theories are also not true or false, just better or worse, useful and not useful and so forth. We don't say physics is pointless because of this. That would be daft.

 

This time you went on to say that logic alone is a reliable process to testify certain theories and my main objection was against it.

 

As a theoretical concept I know exactly what it is. Whether I know it as a phenomenon is my business. So no, don't send me your dead plants. And please stop accusing me of lying. I have never pretended to know anything. I am a philosopher, not a monk.

 

Theoretical knowledge is not true knowledge. A scientist might have radical new ideas to develop a antidote or a vaccine for an uncurable disease but if he doesn't puts his ideas to test to show everyone the number of people that he has saved through his discoveries and inventions then one cannot know whether his ideas are based on reality or based on a complete crap.

 

So either you know about unity or you don't know. There is no such thing as 'I know theoretically' that's not knowing at all. That's not true understanding which implies that you're just preaching about unity without understanding what it is. If you don't know accept it don't pretend or claim that you know about it or say 'Its none of your business'. Without knowing what it is or knowing if it exists or not you've blindly asserted that the world is a unity, this is your way of doing philosophy, isn't it?

 

If we let everyone to talk about unity without a criteria to test them with each one having their own theoretical notions about it then its more like following a blind path going straight into a deep well. I don't accept anyone's notions about unity without testing them or testing it on myself.

 

 

 

Under your nose, as I've been saying for page after page.

 

Do you know what positive evidence is? Its making a prediction or a claim and demonstrating a phenomena empirically to support your claims.

 

 

You can't.

 

If you can't then why are you wasting your time discussing about it. It would be more useful and interesting if you bring some positive evidence for it than writing a new paper or a pile of books about it.

They do.

 

Then can you please kindly show it.

 

No. it demonstrates that you cannot understand what they are talking about.

 

Yes, I have honestly admitted that I don't know about unity. You and your philosophers are the ones who are claiming that we know about unity and who are writing a pile of books about it and more importantly one cannot know about unity by reading books so ofcourse I don't understand when they talk about unity. I wonder whether they themselves understand it.

 

Yes. I know this is your view. This is why our discussion is a complete waste of time. You never think to provide any argument.

 

No, that shows that you can't fairly address my criticisms.

 

 

You seem to be living in some alternative reality. Have you ever tried to understand metaphysics, or examined how it is done? I'd recommend it.

 

Yes, I did read your metaphysical theory, you started with a few premises and went on to make conclusions about the world based on those premises. I guess that's what other metaphysicians do. I am not a philosopher. I am just a layman.

 

 

There's masses of evidence, even before the evidence of experience. I know you can't see it, but fortunately this does not make it go away.

 

 

Those are not positive evidence for unity. Just because alternative doctrines are false doesn't mean that the doctrine of non-dualism is true by default. There can be other explanations as to why the world is the way it is.

Edited June 15, 2012 by immortal

[PeterJ]

Those are not positive evidence for unity. Just because alternative doctrines are false doesn't mean that the doctrine of non-dualism is true by default.

Yes. I have said this many times. It's a problem that afflicts all philosophical and scientific theories. Abduction produces a 'best' theory, not a 'true' one. Abduction is defined by Peirce as 'inference to the best explanation'. What we get from metaphysics, or from the use of our reason, is a decision on which is the best explanation, not on which is the true one.

 

There can be other explanations as to why the world is the way it is.

Evidence please. Nobody has ever proposed a different one. Have you ever seen a different explanation as to why metaphysical questions are undecidable? There is only one other that I know and its called dialethism, for which the universe would be paradoxical and incomprehensible. This appears to be the only other option. McGinn's 'mysterianism' is in effect equivalent. If you have another one then you should publish.

[immortal]

Evidence please. Nobody has ever proposed a different one. Have you ever seen a different explanation as to why metaphysical questions are undecidable? There is only one other that I know and its called dialethism, for which the universe would be paradoxical and incomprehensible. This appears to be the only other option. McGinn's 'mysterianism' is in effect equivalent. If you have another one then you should publish.

 

If scientific realism is found to be true then its the end of the story for the camp of non-dualists. I will be convinced that mysticism is a delusion and that metaphysical questions are meaningless.

[PeterJ]

Your point being...?

 

If pigs could fly that would falsify my view as well.

 

I really can't see what you're trying to achieve by this sort of meaningless remark.

[immortal]

Your point being...?

 

If pigs could fly that would falsify my view as well.

 

I really can't see what you're trying to achieve by this sort of meaningless remark.

 

 

 

The doctrine of scientific realism says that objects like particles, atoms etc exist independent of the mind which is very opposite to the doctrine of non-dualism which says that empirical objects do not exist independent of the mind, it says empirical reality is a retrospective reality created by the mind and hence if scientific realism is found to be true then consciousness is a natural phenomena which can be explained by cognitive science and there is no place for unity in this kind of world.

 

So just because metaphysical questions are undecidable it doesn't logically follow that the world is a unity or supports the view of non-dualism.

[PeterJ]

Thank you for that, but I do know what scientific realism is. Did you think I could form my views, such as they are, without knowing this?

 

You may understand scientific realism okay, but your understanding of the nondual cosmology is woeful, and all you do is keep making this blindingly obvious.

That's fine, but not when you spend all your time objecting to it rather than trying to understand it.

 

I will not reply again and will unsubscribe from this thread. Thank you for another daft discussion.

[immortal]

Thank you for that, but I do know what scientific realism is. Did you think I could form my views, such as they are, without knowing this?

 

And yet you didn't knew about this alternative possibility, you came to know about it only after I told you.

 

You may understand scientific realism okay, but your understanding of the nondual cosmology is woeful, and all you do is keep making this blindingly obvious.

That's fine, but not when you spend all your time objecting to it rather than trying to understand it.

 

Perhaps its time for you to read more about non-dualism and start understanding it correctly and you can always accuse me if whatever I had said is wrong.

 

I will not reply again and will unsubscribe from this thread. Thank you for another daft discussion.

 

Just because things didn't go the way you intended to don't blame the discussion for that. Those were valid points and you failed to address them.

[Yoseph]

I haven't had time to read every post thoroughly but the first answer I thought to the topic is that philosophy isn't crap; it's link to morality means that it affects human behavior, and if like science it's constantly being improved and built upon through discussion, it can hope to bring justice and fairness. Having consciousness, we all have our own philosophy and views no matter how educated we are, and discussing them helps people understand each other. The philosophies and ideas discussed by people accumulate and ultimately affect big decisions to do with war, healthcare, education etc. for better or worse, so long as we learn and progress as a race. Saying that, the reality seems to be that we are not progressing as a species, but it's nice to be optimistic. Hope I don't sound like a "delusional idiot", just some thoughts.

[matth]

Every view or stance you take is essentially philosophical. Philosophy is not about randomness. In the opposite, it's the critique of all your assumptions, truth-values, standards and behaviour.

 

You don't need to be an educated person to ask that question. It's quite arrogant, and I think along with Socrates one could say it shows an ignorance of your essentially human and personal ignorance in all things, in a sense making you less knowledgeable and more limited than someone having a lack of knowledge but admitting to it. A scientist knowing nothing about philosophy and talking about the value of philosophy is exactly an example of such double ignorance forbidding you even to get knowledge about what you're talking about.

 

A scientist constantly has to be philosophical in his own way. Critique of method, theory and the "nature" of your subject of inquiry is part of philosophy and subject to constant change, adaption. Same in other fields, that are not just natural sciences or homgeneous with other natural sciences. They often have to "take a step back" and see what they're doing. It's a basic human trait, one could say.

Edited May 29, 2013 by matth

[Villain]

Every view or stance you take is essentially philosophical. Philosophy is not about randomness. In the opposite, it's the critique of all your assumptions, truth-values, standards and behaviour.

 

You don't need to be an educated person to ask that question. It's quite arrogant, and I think along with Socrates one could say it shows an ignorance of your essentially human and personal ignorance in all things, in a sense making you less knowledgeable and more limited than someone having a lack of knowledge but admitting to it. A scientist knowing nothing about philosophy and talking about the value of philosophy is exactly an example of such double ignorance forbidding you even to get knowledge about what you're talking about.

 

A scientist constantly has to be philosophical in his own way. Critique of method, theory and the "nature" of your subject of inquiry is part of philosophy and subject to constant change, adaption. Same in other fields, that are not just natural sciences or homgeneous with other natural sciences. They often have to "take a step back" and see what they're doing. It's a basic human trait, one could say.

 

Nice post, there seems to be a worrying lack of philosophical understanding in people who have an interest in science. How they got to science in the first place is anyone's guess.