Is Philosophy crap?

[A Tripolation]

No. Not now; not ever. Intrinsic probability is an objective thing. You cannot rationally choose a theory based on personal [subjective] aesthetics. It comes down to objective features of theories: coherence and simplicity.

 

Slow clap for the Doctor.

 

But you are wrong. I never said you could choose a theory based on aesthetics. I said you could choose an INTERPRETATION of a theory (qm) based on aesthetics. Right now, there is no empirical way to choose an interpretation of QM. So, it comes down to aesthetics, or metaphysics, on which one you like. DH stated this a few posts ago.

 

I take it you no longer believe that nonlocal and local versions of QM are empirically differentiable?

[ydoaPs]

Slow clap for the Doctor.

 

But you are wrong. I never said you could choose a theory based on aesthetics. I said you could choose an INTERPRETATION of a theory (qm) based on aesthetics. Right now, there is no empirical way to choose an interpretation of QM. So, it comes down to aesthetics, or metaphysics, on which one you like. DH stated this a few posts ago.

And he was wrong. There is no difference between choosing interpretations and choosing empirically identical theories. DH's view of the history of science is like the right wing's view of the 1950's. It's an imaginary wonderland that never happened.

 

There's no empirical difference between Copernican and Ptolemaic theories. The choice was not based on evidence, but on simplicity/coherence considerations. The same problem faces EVERY scientific theory, as there are infinite ways to fit the data.

 

It is never rationally down to personal aesthetics. If you choose your interpretation of QM based on personal aesthetics, you're being just as irrational as someone choosing between competing theories by personal aesthetics.

I take it you no longer believe that nonlocal and local versions of QM are empirically differentiable?

As Tom said about the speed of wavefunction collapse, that's a discussion for a different thread.

I have to disagree. Acknowledging five times is not ignoring. It's kinda the opposite of ignoring.

 

You don't want to consider this according to my terms and that's fine. There's nothing to discuss.

 

I've just re-read the discussion, and you've actually not addressed the vast majority of what I've said.

Unlike the repeated assertions about all those metaphysical but non-scientific answers out there, I never made any claims about this.

Ah, so you concede that science is permeated with and founded on untestable metaphysical claims. Good. Now, kindly point out when science left the realm of metaphysics.

[A Tripolation]

 

It is never rationally down to personal aesthetics. If you choose your interpretation of QM based on personal aesthetics, you're being just as irrational as someone choosing between competing theories by personal aesthetics.As Tom said about the speed of wavefunction collapse, that's a discussion for a different thread.

 

It really isn't. This is the core of what I'm speaking of. There are no empirical differences between the varying interpretations of QM. Bohmian mechanics, wave mechanics, the space-time approach, these are all the same thing with different mathematical formalisations. The ONLY difference is which metaphysical claims you find to be distasteful about each. It is aesthetics about metaphysics. I, personally, do not like infinitely many worlds. Therefore, I do not hold to the MWI. That isn't science. That's subjective taste. But I'm just as right as someone who favors nonlocal theories.

 

Until you show me a way to empirically separate them, the choice boils down to (useless) philosophy.

Edited June 5, 2013 by A Tripolation

[iNow]

you're wrong.

you are wrong.

he was wrong

 

In a nutshell, this condensed exchange above basically sums up the problem I have with philosophy. In practically every instance we find that these assertions will go back and forth essentially forever until testable claims are made and evidence is acquired.

[ydoaPs]

It is metaphysics about aesthetics.

No. Not ever. If you're doing it by aesthetics, you're wrong and irrational.

Until you show me a way to empirically separate them, the choice boils down to (useless) philosophy.

How do you empirically separate Copernican and Ptolemaic theories? This is ALWAYS an issue with theory choice.

 

In a nutshell, this condensed exchange above basically sums up the problem I have with philosophy. In practically every instance we find that these assertions will go back and forth essentially forever until testable claims are made and evidence is acquired.

Except that I have math and history on my side.

[iNow]

Perhaps I should assert that "you're wrong" just to ensure consistency and alignment with the rest of the thread?

[ydoaPs]

Perhaps I should assert that "you're wrong" just to ensure consistency and alignment with the rest of the thread?

It's more like this:

 

me: you're wrong, and here's why.

 

tom/trip/etc: nuh uh

 

me: yep, and here's why

[iNow]

So, your reply was basically to tell me that I was wrong. That's golden, right there. You can't script stuff this good.

[swansont]

I've just re-read the discussion, and you've actually not addressed the vast majority of what I've said.

 

Because you insisted on arguing from a perspective that I had specifically stated I was excluding. Little of it was relevant to what I wished to discuss,

 

Ah, so you concede that science is permeated with and founded on untestable metaphysical claims.

 

Yes. Six times, now.

 

Good. Now, kindly point out when science left the realm of metaphysics.

 

That's a poor summary of my argument, which, at this point, I am loath to repeat. Again.

 

It's more like this:

 

me: you're wrong, and here's why.

 

tom/trip/etc: nuh uh

 

me: yep, and here's why

 

Nope. You missed it.

 

———————

 

OK, one more brief attempt, in the vein of the recent discussion.

 

Me (and, I think, others): Science grabbed some metaphysics and other bits of philosophy when it broke off and established itself as an independent discipline, demanding testing and confirmation of results

 

yd, PJ: Noooo! Moar metaphysics! Must have moar metaphysics! It's great and wonderful! (at least , that's how it sounds assuming the premise hasn't been ignored)

 

In reality it's "Noooo! You still have metaphysics!"

 

(facepalm, repeat many times)

[ydoaPs]

Because you insisted on arguing from a perspective that I had specifically stated I was excluding. Little of it was relevant to what I wished to discuss,

I insist because I showed that you're wrong. Physics never ever left the realm of philosophy. That's a historical and methodological fact.

OK, one more brief attempt, in the vein of the recent discussion.

 

Me (and, I think, others): Science grabbed some metaphysics and other bits of philosophy when it broke off and established itself as an independent discipline, demanding testing and confirmation of results

Except it never broke off.

 

It's still firmly in the realm of philosophy.

[swansont]

I insist because I showed that you're wrong. Physics never ever left the realm of philosophy. That's a historical and methodological fact.

Except it never broke off.

 

It's still firmly in the realm of philosophy.

 

I'm going to have to rethink how harshly I treat folks who bring up claims of science being dogmatic and rigid, now that I have the chance to see things from this perspective.

[cladking]

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

Indeed, I believe that philosophy is an attempt to establish communication with our confused language. Of course philosophy is incapable of establishing anything beyond question or dispute because it is expressed in language that must be deconstructed to be understood. It actually does a pretty good job because terms are well defined. To a limited extent philosophy underlies science itself but it would be more true to say that science is a child of philosophy as is math. One needn't understand philosophy to understand science but one needs to understand philosophy to understand the implications of and applications for science as well as its technology.

 

I don't follow some of these points but it's mostly because people understand things differently. As I use the term "metaphysics" it is not only the very basis of science; its definitions and axioms, but also the meaning of the galaxy of experimental results. There really is no science at all without metaphysics beyond an observation or experiment. Metaphysics is not only the meaning of our science but, in all probability, any observationally based science. This "metaphysics" and "philosophy" are closely entwined.

 

We can use terms to mean what we want but the duty of an individual is primarily to understand nature and his place in it, and secondarily to communicate thoughts. My opinion is that people play far too fast and loose with language and that it should change and evolve is mere superstition. Yes, changes toward better and more precise communication are good but other changes and change for the sake of change are among the greatest evils.

Edited June 5, 2013 by cladking

[ydoaPs]

I'm going to have to rethink how harshly I treat folks who bring up claims of science being dogmatic and rigid, now that I have the chance to see things from this perspective.

Maybe you should rethink "nuh uh" as a discussion strategy instead. You and the others talk about science splitting off from philosophy as though such a thing happened. The rub is, it never did.

[iNow]

Or, it goes back to how we each choose to define philosophy, as was discussed already like 200 posts ago...

[ydoaPs]

Or, it goes back to how we each choose to define philosophy, as was discussed already like 200 posts ago...

It really doesn't. It started out as philosophy and never stopped being philosophy. If you disagree, feel free to tell me when it separated itself and have me tell you exactly why you're wrong.

[D H]

It really does, ydoaPs. Philosophically speaking, you should try looking at your posts from an objective light.

 

It's not a pretty picture.

[iNow]

It really doesn't. It started out as philosophy and never stopped being philosophy. If you disagree, feel free to tell me when it separated itself and have me tell you exactly why you're wrong.

 

Well, that's helpful. Thanks. I was mostly pointing out that we seem to be defining philosophy differently, and that seems to be driving the issues evidenced in this thread. Not sure why you're so emotive about it all, really. You're acting like someone called your baby ugly.

[ydoaPs]

It really does, ydoaPs. Philosophically speaking, you should try looking at your posts from an objective light.

 

It's not a pretty picture.

Philosophically speaking, no one has given any reason at all to consider science as not being philosophy, and I have given several reasons to consider it such. Mostly that it's an objective fact.

 

Well, that's helpful. Thanks. I was mostly pointing out that we seem to be defining philosophy differently, and that seems to be driving the issues evidenced in this thread. Not sure why you're so emotive about it all, really. You're acting like someone called your baby ugly.

Still no point for when it separation happened? Noted.

[John]

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.

[A Tripolation]

It really doesn't. It started out as philosophy and never stopped being philosophy. If you disagree, feel free to tell me when it separated itself and have me tell you exactly why you're wrong.

 

 

I think most of us agreed to that on the first couple of pages. Like Swansont said, if we're defining science to be under the umbrella of philosophy, the answer to the OP is obvious. But if we look at all the other philosophical branches, are they as useful as logic, mathematics, epistemology, and the scientific method (those four being the branches that modern science uses)?

 

I think the answer is a resounding no. If you can show me the usefulness of something that doesn't have the logical positivists' fingerprints all over it, then I could see myself changing my mind.

 

AFAIK, ethics, metaethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc, is a huge circlejerk that's been going on for centuries with no sort of definable answers anywhere. And that is useless.

Edited June 6, 2013 by A Tripolation

[MonDie]

I think most of us agreed to that on the first couple of pages. Like Swansont said, if we're defining science to be under the umbrella of philosophy, the answer to the OP is obvious. But if we look at all the other philosophical branches, are they as useful as logic, mathematics, epistemology, and the scientific method (those four being the branches that modern science uses)?

 

I think the answer is a resounding no. If you can show me the usefulness of something that doesn't have the logical positivists' fingerprints all over it, then I could see myself changing my mind.

 

AFAIK, ethics, metaethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc, is a huge circlejerk that's been going on for centuries with no sort of definable answers anywhere. And that is useless.

 

Who said ethics was supposed to be useful? Ethics can be a way of defining usefulness, but it isn't useful itself.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[swansont]

Maybe you should rethink "nuh uh" as a discussion strategy instead. You and the others talk about science splitting off from philosophy as though such a thing happened. The rub is, it never did.

 

Right. There's only one perspective to history. Got it.

 

Let me get this straight: your view is that there is nothing to differentiate science from any other part of philosophy.

[PeterJ]

I find it odd that Cladkings excellent post was passed by without comment.

 

Sorry you feel this way about metaphysics, Tripolation. Presumably you have failed to make any sense of it. You're not alone. But you shouldn't assume it would be impossible to do so just for that reason. It cannot be denied that philosophers in western academia have not often made much progress with it, but this is not the fault of metaphysics.

[dimreepr]

From a layman’s perspective this thread seems slightly bizarre; essentially we have scientists saying ‘I’m a scientist’ to which the philosopher replies ‘nope you’re a philosopher’. Seems a little like a chimp insisting humans are still chimps.

[PeterJ]

I don't;think that's it exactly. Or not for me anyway. It's the idea that we can make sense of physics, or even do it, without doing some metaphysics that I find so odd.

 

Feynman was mentioned earlier, and I think he might be someone who would have disagreed with my view. But then, he found Nature incomprehensible, which we could, if we want, see as a problem caused by a failure to do metaphysics. Only a good metaphysician could know whether metaphysics is useless to science.

 

Another relevant example that comes to mind is altruism. This is considered a problem in evolutionary biology. Yet is is a metaphyscial problem, and it has a metaphysical solution (as given by Schopenhauer et al). So why is it a problem in biology? Because often people think that metaphysics has nothing to do with biology. Altruism thus becomes incomprehensible for the sake of maintaining a line in the sand. Perhaps the whole of Nature is incomprehensible when we do this. How can we know either way without doing some metaphysics?

Edited June 6, 2013 by PeterJ