Is Philosophy crap?

[iNow]

^Note: Altruism has been explainable for decades quite well by both biology and psychology. We can start a new thread if you'd like to disagree or discuss further. [/off-topic]

[proximity1]

Would it perhaps be more accurate to say that there is a distinction but the border is fuzzy, with the intersection of philosophy and science being non-empty but science not being a subset of philosophy?

 

This seems similar in some ways to a discussion of whether engineering is science, though I think scientists are often more than willing to say it isn't.

 

I think more accurate would be to recognize that there is no effective "border" between science and philosophy, fuzzy or fine. Science is impossible without a few a priori assumptions--the "a priori" there means that they cannot be empirically proven or demonstrated, but must be taken for granted at the start. This really isn't news in the 21st century. Whether people here (apart from Yodaps, that is,) are aware of it or not, in the history of science, it has long been acknowledged that science in its theorization and in its practical experimentation, must resort to some a priori assumptions--those are fundamental philosophical matters--causality is among them, but that doesn't exhaust the list. For me, a corrollary question of interest is "Why does the admission that there is inevitably an essential philosophic element in all science cause such apparent angst among some here?

 

Let me mention a few names of scientists (or mathematicians, or both) whove acknowledged in their own popular writings, that science and philosophy (by any meaningful definition of that latter term) are inseparable:

 

Bertrand Russell, Max Planck, Neils Bohr, Albert Einstein, and, uhm, virtually every scientist practicing prior to the 19th century ---oh, wait, that's one of those "appeals to authority", isn't it?!? Sheesh! Yes, I appeal to authority--esp. one called, "reason" (as I understand it, of course--I cannot use it any other way than that).

[John]

The discussion's kind of morphed over time, and I'm honestly not sure what the argument is about at this point. However, I think everyone here agrees that philosophy is important in the history and foundations of science.

[proximity1]

The discussion's kind of morphed over time, and I'm honestly not sure what the argument is about at this point. However, I think everyone here agrees that philosophy is important in the history and foundations of science.

 

I'd summarize the current sticking point this way:

 

Q: (originally) Is "philosophy" necessary for (or in order to "do science") science ?

 

A's: (Swansont & Co.): No. / Later qualified to : It depends of course on what "philosophy" is deemed to be (or to mean) See post N° 164, e.g.. : "if one is considering science as a subset of philosophy, then yes, this is true. We do it all the time. By definition."

 

and, post N° 141: ..."I think there's a divide between science and philosophy." in part, because, it is alleged, in N° 126, "And yet a scientist may know nothing about philosophy but is still somehow able to do science."

 

A's (cont.) (Yodaps & Co.) Yes. Arguing that philosophy is inherent in science as that is understood today. Many (perhaps all) of early scientists were philosophers---that is, they practiced philosophy in or in addition to their "scientific" work and should not have understood the distinction between one and the other. I.E., there is no way to "get to science" (my quotation marks for imagery) without at the same time, using philosophy, wittingly or not. That's important, (IMO) because it replies to Swansont's view that one can practice science "know[ing] nothing about philosophy."

 

The point, however, is that the person who allegedly "knows nothing about philosophy" is none the less obliged to resort to it, whether he or she "knows it" or not. And, thus, there is philosophy going on despite claims to the contrary, it seems to me. As Wright Mills might say, "It takes some very tall and narrow reasoning" to conclude that there needn't be any philosophy in the work of science--that is, that science isn't "concerned with philosophy."

 

So, the current key sticking point seems to be that between the view that we may finesse the definition of "philosophy" so that it does (or doesn't) come into the picture of science. For Swansont, this means that science being philosohical in part is merely word-play and semantics, a result of a choice of definition.

 

I'd argue that there isn't any practically useful and interesting way to define either science or philosophy which leaves us free to say about philosophy that, in science, we may "take it or leave it". Only by a scientist's being ignorant of its actual role (clearly there are such) --that is, only by a lack of awareness--can a scientist "leave it".

Edited June 6, 2013 by proximity1

[MonDie]

I think more accurate would be to recognize that there is no effective "border" between science and philosophy, fuzzy or fine. Science is impossible without a few a priori assumptions--the "a priori" there means that they cannot be empirically proven or demonstrated, but must be taken for granted at the start. This really isn't news in the 21st century. Whether people here (apart from Yodaps, that is,) are aware of it or not, in the history of science, it has long been acknowledged that science in its theorization and in its practical experimentation, must resort to some a priori assumptions--those are fundamental philosophical matters--causality is among them, but that doesn't exhaust the list. For me, a corrollary question of interest is "Why does the admission that there is inevitably an essential philosophic element in all science cause such apparent angst among some here?

 

The truth of scientific theories does not depend on the truth of any particular notion regarding causality. AFAIK, you can remove the assumption from modern science, and modern science will remain scientific (i.e. informative).

Edited June 6, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[swansont]

A's (cont.) (Yodaps & Co.) Yes. Arguing that philosophy is inherent in science as that is understood today. Many (perhaps all) of early scientists were philosophers---that is, they practiced philosophy in or in addition to their "scientific" work and should not have understood the distinction between one and the other. I.E., there is no way to "get to science" (my quotation marks for imagery) without at the same time, using philosophy, wittingly or not. That's important, (IMO) because it replies to Swansont's view that one can practice science "know[ing] nothing about philosophy."

 

Except that it doesn't respond to my actual view, because I have acknowledged that science contains philosophy from day 1 of my participation in the thread. The question is abut additional philosophy. My view is that it is possible to learn all of the philosophy you need in your science classes, as being part of science. IOW, it's not required that you take a philosophy class in order to do science. It is possible to do science without having to consult a philosopher at various steps along the way. And I don't think anyone has responded to this point. They've responded to a "science contains no trace of philosophy" strawman.

[PeterJ]

Fair point Swansont. I did suggest that we dropped the original debate, which is hardly worth arguing about and never was, and move on in order to address your question here, which is much more interesting, but people didn't seem to want to do this. Perhaps it would be best dealt with in a new thread so there's not so much baggage to carry.

 

iNow - Off topic, but I was not aware that the problem of altruism had been solved in biology. What was the solution? Is is testable?

[proximity1]

Except that it doesn't respond to my actual view, because I have acknowledged that science contains philosophy from day 1 of my participation in the thread. The question is abut additional philosophy. My view is that it is possible to learn all of the philosophy you need in your science classes, as being part of science. IOW, it's not required that you take a philosophy class in order to do science. It is possible to do science without having to consult a philosopher at various steps along the way. And I don't think anyone has responded to this point. They've responded to a "science contains no trace of philosophy" strawman.

 

I quoted you verbatim-- here: post N° 141: ..."I think there's a divide between science and philosophy."

 

and here: N° 126, "And yet a scientist may know nothing about philosophy but is still somehow able to do science."

 

Now you tell us--for what looks to me like the first time--that you mean and meant,

 

"The question is abut additional philosophy. My view is that it is possible to learn all of the philosophy you need in your science classes, as being part of science. IOW, it's not required that you take a philosophy class in order to do science. It is possible to do science without having to consult a philosopher at various steps along the way."

 

(empasis in the original !)

 

As a clarification of your previously posted argument and statements, I find that quite an amazing statement and I leave to other readers and Yodaps to read and judge for themselves whether this "additional philosophy" was your clear intent and meaning from the first. For me, the OP's import was clear--it asked whether or not readers considered that scientists themselves, as practitioners, needed to resort in their science work to philosophy or whether, on the other hand, they could dispense with it.

OP :

 

I often view philosophy as complete rubbish. Mindless mental musing with no goal, direction, or pragmatic capacity.

 

However, upon expressing these views, I'm often immediately attacked with the claims that science cannot exist without philosophy. That we can know nothing without philosophy. The terms epistemology and sopolism are oft thrown around.

 

As someone who understands the power of the scientific method but knows little about "proper philosophy", I may be a tad biased and uninformed in my opinion. So I'd like to ask everyone on SFN: What are your views on the field of philosophy?

 

Fair point Swansont.

 

Perhaps you could explain that to me in a PrivateMessage, rather than appending it here in the thread? I'd be interested to read how it's a "fair point", in your opinion. Thank you.

[swansont]

I quoted you verbatim-- here: post N° 141: ..."I think there's a divide between science and philosophy."

 

and here: N° 126, "And yet a scientist may know nothing about philosophy but is still somehow able to do science."

 

You're not including

 

If you consider science to be philosophy then the question is moot. If you consider that science has separated itself from philosophy and they are distinct subjects, then it is not.

 

And the many times I repeated that, in various ways.

 

 

Now you tell us--for what looks to me like the first time--that you mean and meant,

 

"The question is abut additional philosophy. My view is that it is possible to learn all of the philosophy you need in your science classes, as being part of science. IOW, it's not required that you take a philosophy class in order to do science. It is possible to do science without having to consult a philosopher at various steps along the way."

 

(empasis in the original !)

 

As a clarification of your previously posted argument and statements, I find that quite an amazing statement and I leave to other readers and Yodaps to read and judge for themselves whether this "additional philosophy" was your clear intent and meaning from the first. For me, the OP's import was clear--it asked whether or not readers considered that scientists themselves, as practitioners, needed to resort in their science work to philosophy or whether, on the other hand, they could dispense with it.

 

It's much harder to determine intent from selective quotes that omit the context. It was a conversation, and I tried to clarify as the discussion proceeded.

 

You could, for example, refer to this

I take the view that science is not a subset, and that the philosophy that gave rise to science is part of science, and you have non-science philosophy as a separate endeavor

 

So, not the first time I expressed this.

[John Cuthber]

It seems to me that the argument is that philosophy isn't crap because part of it went on to become physics.

Well, I have news for you: alchemy is crap even though chemistry is useful; and theology is also part of philosophy.

You can't sensibly judge the utility of something on the basis of what some small part of it went to become- in particular, you can't judge the rest of it by what some small part went on to do.

[cladking]

Except that it doesn't respond to my actual view, because I have acknowledged that science contains philosophy from day 1 of my participation in the thread. The question is abut additional philosophy. My view is that it is possible to learn all of the philosophy you need in your science classes, as being part of science. IOW, it's not required that you take a philosophy class in order to do science. It is possible to do science without having to consult a philosopher at various steps along the way. And I don't think anyone has responded to this point. They've responded to a "science contains no trace of philosophy" strawman.

 

This is why I like using the definition of "metaphysics" to be the tools, definitions, and axioms used to understand something rationally. In "science" "metaphysics" includes past observation and experimental results. Science is highly dependent on metaphysics but metaphysics and philosophy are distinct subjects with some overlap.

 

I believe philosophy is good to study and by no means "crap" but much of it is language and modern language is open to interpretation. I believe far more attention should be paid to the metaphysical underpinnings of science because these define what science actually is. You don't have to have what we call "philosophy" to understand science though it's the same reason that founded both and science sprang from philosophy.

 

I'm not sure most of us aren't saying the same thing in different words.

[PeterJ]

I

 

Perhaps you could explain that to me in a PrivateMessage, rather than appending it here in the thread? I'd be interested to read how it's a "fair point", in your opinion. Thank you.

 

Oh bloody hell. I try to be conciliatory and I'm marched off into a private meeting to explain myself. .

 

Who cares what Swansont started out by saying? I agree that he seemed to be saying what you thought he was saying. And like you I thought it was completely daft. But maybe we were both wrong and he was trying to say something else. It's what he's saying now that matters.

 

He is asking what philosophy can do for science over and above what it has already done or is now doing for it. If it is nothing, then there is no point in scientists doing philosophy, or it wouldn't be part of the day job. It would be a waste of the tax payers money. If it is something, then what?

 

It's a good question, But I would prefer it became the start of a new thread. In that thread I would disagree with Cladking and suggest that metaphysics is necessary to an understanding of Nature, and thus also the natural sciences. This is not a matter of debate. Either it can be demonstrated or it is a matter of conjecture.

Edited June 6, 2013 by PeterJ

[proximity1]

RE: 234--

 

I agree, those comments make your meaning clear(er) and, though I hadn't read them (well enough) or understood their point clearly earlier, even before this post of yours, I'd come to see from your N° 233 (after further reflection) that this (in 234) is what you mean and I take your word for it that it's what you meant all along.

 

Still, for me, my understanding of your position is now much changed from what it was prior to your post N° 233. I'm somewhat to blame for not having gained the full and proper ideas from the citations you make (again) in N° 234, but, in part, I think what I'd understood was, though partly faulty, at least a plausible interpretation of what you meant.

 

Now, I restate the gist of the discussion's differing views this way--

 

For you, yes, philosophy does and always has informed science and the work of scientists. That philosophy is what we should refer to (today, at any rate) as "the philosophy of science" and distinguishable sub-set of a larger field of philosophy. As I understand Yodaps 's views, this is too strained a circumscription of the part of philosophy in science--even if we accept, and I do--that in the main science is mostly concerned with the philosophies of science as they concern epsitemology and other branches concerning reason and logic.

 

But, unless I'm again mistaken, I think that your N° 233 reveals more--and more interesting and pertinent aspects about your views of the relationship of science and philosophy. So, to discover these and whether I'm correct, I invite you to correct the following re-summary of what I think you are actually saying, still only incompletely expressed as I see it:

 

In science, there is a certain amount of philosophy to learn and to keep in mind in both practice and theory. That science, properly, is and should be learned in the science classroom, where students learn it from qualified scientists, whatever other credentials they may happen to have in philosophy. If they take on other philosophy, and, especially, if they get it from non-science philosophers, they're running the risk of taking on a load of belief which is either irrelevant to science or even perhaps outright harmful to a good and proper practice of that.

 

I can put that more briefly this way--in the main, outside of the strict limits of the philosophy of science, philosophers have nothing (or nothing much) to teach (or to say to) scientists. Similarly, philosophy as a whole, is mainly irrelevant to science except for the branches directly related to the philososphy of science. Again, a scientist should teach epistemology, not a "general philosopher" or even an epistemologist who isn't also himself or herself a scientist. If, for example, science and if scientists need to study ethics, they should study it from other scientists, not from from non-scientist philosophers who teach ethics.

 

If that isn't in fact your own view of things, I believe that it's a fair approximation of what many, many professionals in science actually think and practice in their work everyday. I suspect and I fear that there are some--and any is too many--scientists who've never bothered to take up ethics in any but a very casual and off-hand way, who've never made a point to delve into ethics beyond what they may have been taught in a science classroom course called something like 'Ethics for science and scientists", taught by scientists.

 

As I read Yodaps, his view of philosophy is such that one can't (or at least shouldn't) try to make and apply such distinctions when it comes to how philosophy and science are related. A philosopher of ethics or of general philosophy could properly teach a class on ethics in science, as I read Yodaps, but, not as I read your views of it; or, in a world where everything was confined to its proper place, that wouldn't happen.

 

I think many scientists are weak in their philosophy, don't know that they are, and certainly aren't much concerned with the matter anyway. I think that this is no less, if, indeed, not more, the case in ethics, for example where more and more I'm impressed by what scientists show themselves capable of thinking, believing, saying and doing.

 

No small part of this comes from the time I've spent reading this site's blogs.

Edited June 6, 2013 by proximity1

[PeterJ]

Sorry Proximity - I wasnt; actually annoyed, just hamming it up. I saw why you said what you did.

 

I think it would be a mistake for any scientifically-minded person to approach philosophy by starting with ethics. Many people are never seen again, or emerge half-crazed and talking gibberish.

 

I would start where Paul Davies starts in his book on metaphysics, with the Something-Nothing problem, and for the same reason, which is that it is difficult to say that it is irrelevant to science, and even if it is it remains of great interest to most scientists. It is simple to state, and there are no details to confuse us.

 

Because this is now metaphyscis, where everything is connected to everything else, the solution to this should tell us something about ethics.

Edited June 6, 2013 by PeterJ

[cladking]

Oh bloody hell. I try to be conciliatory and I'm marched off into a private meeting to explain myself. .

 

Who cares what Swansont started out by saying? I agree that he seemed to be saying what you thought he was saying. And like you I thought it was completely daft. But maybe we were both wrong and he was trying to say something else. It's what he's saying now that matters.

 

He is asking what philosophy can do for science over and above what it has already done or is now doing for it. If it is nothing, then there is no point in scientists doing philosophy, or it wouldn't be part of the day job. It would be a waste of the tax payers money. If it is something, then what?

 

It's a good question, But I would prefer it became the start of a new thread. In that thread I would disagree with Cladking and suggest that metaphysics is necessary to an understanding of Nature, and thus also the natural sciences. This is not a matter of debate. Either it can be demonstrated or it is a matter of conjecture.

 

You wouldn't be disagreeing with me. I believe metaphysics for all practical purposes is the meaning of modern science. It certainly is the basis of science and defines its results. Even ancient science was probably defined by its metaphysics though that metaphysics was language. How ironic that it's primarily semantics and language at issue in this thread.

 

Philosophy and science are mostly distinct but have some overlap. Science sprang full born from philosophy. Metaphysics is the meaning of science before and after the fact. Modern sience is rooted in observation and experiment but we need definitions before the fact and words to understand and communicate the results afterward.

 

This thread simply supports what I've been saying since even before my recent research into ancient science: We need to concentrate much more on teaching the metaphysics starting in first grade and then never stop. We tend to assume that everyone is up on metaphysics because it is so simple but this has proven to be the stumbling point. It is this problem that has led to widespread misapplication and misunderstanding of science. It has provided most people with a gross overestimation of the knowlkedge developed to date. It leads to the virtually ubiquitous false statements made about nature by most people and even many scientists.

[PeterJ]

You wouldn't be disagreeing with me. I believe metaphysics for all practical purposes is the meaning of modern science. It certainly is the basis of science and defines its results. Even ancient science was probably defined by its metaphysics though that metaphysics was language. How ironic that it's primarily semantics and language at issue in this thread.

My mistake. I picked up on your comment 'You don't have to have what we call "philosophy" to understand science', while I'm not so sure.

 

Seems to me you;re right, it's nearly always semantics and language at issue. We are the descendents of the Tower fo Babel fiasco.

 

 

This thread simply supports what I've been saying since even before my recent research into ancient science: We need to concentrate much more on teaching the metaphysics starting in first grade and then never stop. We tend to assume that everyone is up on metaphysics because it is so simple but this has proven to be the stumbling point. It is this problem that has led to widespread misapplication and misunderstanding of science. It has provided most people with a gross overestimation of the knowlkedge developed to date. It leads to the virtually ubiquitous false statements made about nature by most people and even many scientists.

Pause for applause. .

 

I see it as a gross underestimation of what we've learnt so far, but maybe it's both.in a way.

[cladking]

I see it as a gross underestimation of what we've learnt so far, but maybe it's both.in a way.

 

It truly is both. The amount of data available on the diversity of subjects is simply astounding. To say we know a million times more than the pyramid builders is a sort of understatement. But, this data is largely formless because it does not directly impact theory. Just because we can print reems of data on a fungus growing on the back leg of a bark beetle that lives in spruce trees doesn't mean we can see the forest. We can carefully measure the strenght and speed of gravity but otherwise we know no more about its nature than the ancients.

 

Our knowledge is very broad but still quite shallow. Our ability to apply the knowledge we have is quite poor (other than to technology) .

[PeterJ]

Yes. It's a funny thing. All this massive increase in knowledge over the centuries, and not one piece of data contradicts the results of metaphysics obtained by the early Greeks. A remarkable testament ot the power and relevance of logic. Or just thinking straight. .

[cladking]

Yes. It's a funny thing. All this massive increase in knowledge over the centuries, and not one piece of data contradicts the results of metaphysics obtained by the early Greeks. A remarkable testament ot the power and relevance of logic. Or just thinking straight. .

 

I believe the Greek understanding had to take a backseat to the ancient Egyptians. The Greeks invented "impetii" to explain inertia which is at least somewhat antirational. The Egyptians simply named it much as we do without ascribing motivation or implying some consciousness. The Greeks probably borrowed most "philosophy" from the Egyptians but the ancient metaphysics was all lost at Babel so they were left to fill in the blanks with modern language and definitions.

 

Each time we increase knowledge a million fold we'll probably gain about another 1% increase in the total understanding of nature, but I fear our metaphysics might not quite be up to the job of getting us to that first 1% understanding. If true, this might in a sense be a philosophical problem but it probably more reflects nature itself. Almost all of nature's behavior when viewed in isolation is exceedingly simple but in its entirety is usually impossibly complex. It appears that nature exists on unimaginably small and large scales in all dimensions. It appears as though there are quanta of everything and even, perhaps, space itself. Very little cutting edge science involves processes that can be directly observed.

 

I believe the solution to the current problem (assuming science really is bogging down) will involve philosophical, logical, and mathematical adjustment to the metaphysics. To some extent this is already occurring though it is informal. Certainly cutting edge science hasn't been strictly observation and experiment for a good long while so to this degree is not pure science.

[PeterJ]

My apologies to the Egyptions. And to the writers of the Upanishads and Lao Tsu et al. The Greeks weren't even in the car for much of the journey. .

 

I can agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm much more optimistic. I believe that metaphysics is a lot easier to do than most people think it is. It's just that they usually do not believe their own results, or cannot find an interpretation. It's a doddle compared to physics. It's just more frightening.

 

What do you mean when you say 'the ancient metaphysics was lost at Babel'? I'm wondering if there's more to the story than I remember. I'm interested because I see metaphysics as exactly and precisely the attempt to build a tower to Heaven, and as causing exactly the same problems as the original, which I assume was metaphorical. . .

[cladking]

My apologies to the Egyptions. And to the writers of the Upanishads and Lao Tsu et al. The Greeks weren't even in the car for much of the journey. .

What do you mean when you say 'the ancient metaphysics was lost at Babel'? I'm wondering if there's more to the story than I remember. I'm interested because I see metaphysics as exactly and precisely the attempt to build a tower to Heaven, and as causing exactly the same problems as the original, which I assume was metaphorical. . .

 

Our hosts seem very sensitive to drifting off topic. Suffice to say I believe there is adequate reason to believe that no ancient religion existed and we mistake ancient science as religion. The ancient metaphysics was language and we remember the failure of the ancient language (it got too complicated) as the story of the Tower of Babel. Eventually I'll try another thread with the extensive evidence in this forum or in speculations but at this time I'm still trying to get a feel for the culture here. I'd be happy to discuss it in PM's if you desire. Few people are aware that almost no knowledge of the great pyramid builders survives and what exists is all speculation and assumption.

 

 

I can agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm much more optimistic. I believe that metaphysics is a lot easier to do than most people think it is. It's just that they usually do not believe their own results, or cannot find an interpretation. It's a doddle compared to physics. It's just more frightening.

 

 

I believe the reason people have lost sight of modern metaphysics is that it is so simple. Certainly keeping track of all the experimental results is more complicated but if we don't forget the definitions and axioms most of the battle is won. If you mean you're optimistic about the ability of science to progress then you might well be correct. My concern is that we've been on the verge of the unified field theory for so long that it's possible we might be stuck.

[MonDie]

Yes. It's a funny thing. All this massive increase in knowledge over the centuries, and not one piece of data contradicts the results of metaphysics obtained by the early Greeks. A remarkable testament ot the power and relevance of logic. Or just thinking straight. .

 

Assuming that you're claim is true, the relevant question would be: Can scientific data contradict it? Many verificationists rejected metapysics as claims that are untestable or even meaningless.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[PeterJ]

Yes, that's a good objection.

 

What we have found is that it is impossible to find any scientific data which would contradict the claim of metaphysics that all selective conclusions about the universe are undecidable, or, equivalently, that all extreme views are logically absurd. Whether this is a scientific issue may be a matter of definitions. But we see many people here asking about the beginning of the universe, its size, the beginning of time, the nature of space, the origin of consciousness etc., so the results of metaphysics are at least of interest to scientists.

 

A case in point. If we were to solve the problem of consiousness by showing that it arises from matter then we would have falsified a result of metaphysics, This allows us to predict that this is not the solution, and that showing that it is would be impossible. What we have learnt over the centuries is that science cannot gainsay logic. It might not have turned out this way.

[MonDie]

A case in point. If we were to solve the problem of consiousness by showing that it arises from matter then we would have falsified a result of metaphysics,

 

What do you mean by "consciousness"? As Wittgenstein showed us, you must define your terms before your statement can make a factual claim.

[PeterJ]

Yes. It's not a well-defined term even in consciousnes studies. But I'm sure you know what I mean. The problem of consciousness has a vast literature.

 

 

And after all, I could ask what you mean by 'define' and 'factual'. .

 

.

Edited June 8, 2013 by PeterJ