Philosophy truely sucks.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Nope. Sorry.

 

1) Purpose, 2) consequences

 

Why do we think? What is the outcome of consciousness? Does the way in which we think affect the outcome?

 

Maybe you're right and that's not epistemology, but those sound like philosophical questions to me.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Why do we think? What is the outcome of consciousness? Does the way in which we think affect the outcome?

 

Maybe you're right and that's not epistemology, but those sound like philosophical questions to me.

 

That's right, but epistemology it isn't.

 

If you really want to nail me under the 'hypocracy' label for engaging in Philosophical discussions by challenging philosophical reason, you need only look at the forum that I personally chose to have this debate.

 

You may also observe how one moniter decided to move this thread to 'strange claims' for reasons I can quite legitimately understand, and how I campaigned behind the scenes that this was a debate to be had in the philsophical forum and nowhere else and how I succeeded.

 

All would point to the indesputable conclusion that I believe this debate to be philsophical in nature.

 

Does that let the subject of philsophy off the hook when I enquire for it to justify it's usefulness in the 21st century? Not in my opinion. The way I see it, such an argument is Ad hominem at best.

 

The only question which you might pose if I am unlucky is whether, since I clearly believe there is a use for this thread [in particular, whether or not philosophy departments get funded] does that in itself prove philsophy has a practical utility?

 

But then again, I might be lucky and not get asked that question.

 

I've always felt that the academic study of philosophy only exists because there has been no definitive answer. All you do is study different viewpoints that all end up being studied on a comparative level because all end up being inconclusive.

 

I have to say, I thought your post was very well thought out and I began to think of you as one of my few friends :hihi: and was even considering inviting you to my rather empty tea party .........

 

until I saw your cutting last 7 words grrrrrr.

But then I realized.... that's what all fields of study are.

You are now on my enemies list. QP for wit. Great post.

 

But every joke hinges on an element of truth, and I'll deal with the point you were making even though some might criticise me for being 'a bit dry and sciencey'.

 

Lets start with Science. Yes opposing views are considered, but only so far as showing it to be wrong and improving the understanding of the correct model. Everynow and then, experts disagree with multiple models competing for unaminous acceptance. In these cases, it is just a matter of time before experimental capabilities settles the matter with devistating conciseness.

 

Then we have Philosophy. Philosophy deals with questions that were unanswerable thousands of years ago, will continue to be unanswerable, and will continue to be unanswerable for the forseeable and unforseeable future. Sure apparent answers will be given, but when, for example one has to distinguish between when a box constantly repaired continues to be the same box, any assumption used to make an answer must be completely arbitary with no more reason for it's correctness than over any other different answer.

 

Then we have social sciences. Yes, social sciences do not tend to have clear definate scientific like answers. But that is only because of the practical difficulties of making 'measurments' and 'experiments'. With millions of factors all roled into one and with no opportunity of repeating exprements and even with identifying the scientific facts in the first place, social sciences are crippled from the start. But theoretically at least, they rely on the same methods and should come up with concrete conclusions. Infact, even though I described 'social sciences' a a crippled science [for difficulties of expermentation] despite this handicap, social scientists have still produced a number of interesting and in some cases vital theories that have been accepted almost unanimously.

 

So in my view, they have more in common with sciences even though for practical difficulties they sometimes act more like philosophy.

 

Sebbysteiny: If you're suggesting that the exclusion, in everyday behaviour, of symbolic logic or various questions of concern to philosophers, renders philosophy worthless, your argument has no basis, as the vast majority of research and results in all academic fields can be similarly criticised. Would you equally say that archeology, cosmology, mathematics or palaeontology are worthless?

 

With respect, I do not share your analysis.

 

Archeology is the study of past civilisations. Not only does it have the same importance as history, we may even find technological advances from lost civilisations.

 

As somebody who has actively taken part in holocaust memorial day, if you don't learn from the past, you might, nay, will repeat the mistakes in the future.

 

And we clearly havn't learnt from the past. Otherwise, why the **** are we doing nothing about Sudan?????? How many more times do we need to say 'never again'. And if I get in trouble with the monitors for strong language or for talking about something of limited relevance, it is worth it if it helps spread the message that we, citizens of the world, should, once and for all, finally say no to genocide.

 

Cosmology, mathematics. Maybe you should ask the same question in 30 years after the advent of nuclear fusion.

 

palaeontology: Darwin may disagree with you as will all the multi million dollar corporations that use the theory of natural selection to develop new cures and products.

 

Bearing in mind the increasing delegation of responsibility to computers, I would say that philosophers presently have an important social role.

Another thread, me thinks.

 

Now for the bigger threads of Kriminal99 and Sanctus

 

Regarding proof or cold hard facts

 

The terms "proof" and "facts" imply objective truth. My statement as to the non-existence of proof or facts is meant to imply there is no such thing as something Person A can give Person B to force them to accept Proposition Z or be considered completely irrational.

 

I understand the philsophical discussion that there is no such thing as truth given to perfect certainty. My arguement is that you should consider the concept of a vertual certainy and anything that is virtually certain is truth.

 

What is the use of this discussion? My problem with this reasoning is where it leads.

 

I don't want to use genocides again and again since it might seem that this principal only applies to them, which it doesn't.

 

But consider this clear undisputable fact.

 

'Genocides are bad'.

 

Now in my view, the only way a person can possibly dispute this no matter what reality they believe, is if they say 'Genocides are not bad, they are completely and utterly morally repugnant.'

 

Knowledge being the abscence of that which contradicts what you believe means that given all evidence you could possibly obtain and having objectively considered any alternate explanations you can think of or find, you conclude that a proposition is considered knowledge simply because it is the best answer you can find.

 

No. Knowledge is when you have an answer that absolutely and completely corresponds with every known observation. Anything short of that is 'knowledge in the making'.

 

When you see quite how closely scientific expermimentation corresponds with the predictions of quantum mechanics for hydrogen, I would be extremely surprised if you could conclude anything other than the theory of quantum mechanics for hydrogen is absolute undisputable fact.

 

A) With respect, scientists do this all the time. One does not need to challenge the phiosophical limits of induction to know that 1/20 statistically accepted links [which become so only if they fall within a 95% certainty] will be wrong.

 

And to argue that we do not know that we have even done an experiment on the grounds that we cannot have perfect certainty that our eyes and observations physically exist is something quite different altogether and serves no practal use.

 

:hihi: I think most of what you talking about is the mechanics of arguing. However, if somebody disbelieves quantum mechanics simply on the basis of the philosophical limits of induction then I say he IS wrong and philosophy has acted to undermine knowledge rather than contribute to it.

 

Your example is not really relevant since you both accepted the same version of truth: that there was a small but finite chance that making that change could result in fraud or negligence thus losing the job.

 

But you both chose different strategies to deal with it.

 

In reading what you write, I'm not trying to get into a philsophical discussion, but to find a use for philosophy within what you say. However, I realise that I might be creating a straw man, but it seems to me that you are trying to steal statistical analysis from mathematics and science and attribute it to philosophy. When induction is challenged in Philosophy, it means something fundamentally different to bad expermients to expose poison distributions. Philosophy uses it to challenge the idea that we can 'know' anything at all and then goes on and takes the idea of 'alternatives' seriously. In doing that, philosophy loses the support of the scientific community, statisticians and every other accademic subject.

 

So, in short, the assumptions challenged by philosophy, unlike the fundamentally different examples given by you, cannot be backed up by statisticians. In the limit, a vertual certainty is the same as a perfect certainty.

 

Most Generalizations are not based on logic

 

Not true in my view. If a person hired for two weeks starts a fire and shreds the wrong documents 3 times, any sane boss will sack him. Is that generalisation, based on 4 data points, hasty? Certainly not. Is the decision logical? Absolutely. The only illogical position would be to not form that generalisation and keep that clumsy dangerously incompetant employee in office.

 

Again, I say,

 

1 swallow does not a summer make. But there comes a point where you see so many swallows flying past your window that you have to logically conclude it is summer.

 

 

Only by always keeping an open mind and looking for information that might contradict what you believe can you claim to have knowledge of anything.

This is a squirrel

 

And no it is not a squirrel.

If you can find one person who is prepared to disagree with your original point then I'll happily take it back :cup:. If you are somehow saying that my position is that the original quote is false, then it is a strawman.

 

Coherentism take 3

 

Am I right in saying that you are arguing that the practical utility of Coherentism is that it improves the literacy [ie the ability of people to understand and communicate writen arguments], oral and listening skills?

 

No maximizing human rights is not a universal purpose of government. Many governments do no such thing. Also I see that as a completely arbitrary thing to make a government focus on.

The importance of this tangent is that Kriminal99 is saying that philosophy plays a role in the creation of successful government, which would demonstrate a clear utility of philsophy.

 

Many governants are also disgusting dictatorships. And what else should a government focus on?

 

I doubt anyone will ban you here, or I would probably already have been banned.

 

Don't be surprised if, soon, you find my name writen in grey and my rep points reduced to zero and no further contributions from me. You need only ask any of the moderators and administrators to know about the quite significant behind the scenes discussions about whether they want me on this sight or not. But until a decision is made to ban me, I will continue to try and find truth with you guys. :).

 

A good understanding of plurality of coherentism would prevent you from criticizing philosophy as useless while citing its results under the banner of proper subset disciplines of philosophy.

 

What you are saying here is that the particular subject of plurality coherentism has uses. If you argue that it does and cannot be substitued for another discipline, then I will have to look it up before so that I don't argue based on ignorance.

 

 

Sadly, not enough time for Sanctus. Shame, his proported argument that the INFLUENCE of philosophical ideas on other accademic areas amounts to 'practical utility' deserves to be explored.

 

 

Summary of debate so far

But the one good thing about this thread is that we have now got a number of different attacks on my innital premise.

 

If I am forgetting one, I am sorry. But we have:

Sanctus' argument that indirect influence amounts to a practical utility.

Kriminal99's one that challenging induction [the very part that I feel is most dangerous and useless] gives a better statistical understanding than statistics.

Kriminal99's one saying that Philosophy is responsible for the construction of systems of governments.

 

There also seem to be others in the making but that they have not been sufficiently explained for me to conclude that they do amount to a strong attack on my original statement.

 

Oh, and a lot of people have got pissed off at my attempt to slay this sacred cow.

[Turtle]

Summary of debate so far

But the one good thing about this thread is that we have now got a number of different attacks on my innital premise.

 

If I am forgetting one, I am sorry. But we have:

Sanctus' argument that indirect influence amounts to a practical utility.

Kriminal99's one that challenging induction [the very part that I feel is most dangerous and useless] gives a better statistical understanding than statistics.

Kriminal99's one saying that Philosophy is responsible for the construction of systems of governments.

 

There also seem to be others in the making but that they have not been sufficiently explained for me to conclude that they do amount to a strong attack on my original statement.

 

Oh, and a lot of people have got pissed off at my attempt to slay this sacred cow.

 

Some have just been reading it with bemused awe. :ud: Your summary is very helpful. From an historical perspective it is arguable that philosophy has played a role in the formation of government, e.g. the U.S., but that's only to say it's sufficient and not necessary.

In the reference to statistics, do I understand you mean to employ them in predictive probabalistic means? If so, then such arguments ought to include and refer to the mathematics of chaos/complex systems.

Should we pay for a philosophy department if it's not rigorously logically justified? Why the hell not! I'ts not like it costs more than the band, and there is always the possibility of an emergent harmonious property.:singer:

[TheFaithfulStone]

The only question which you might pose if I am unlucky is whether, since I clearly believe there is a use for this thread [in particular, whether or not philosophy departments get funded] does that in itself prove philsophy has a practical utility?

 

Consider it posed, as that was the underlying punch, which you seem to have beaten me to.

 

TFS

[ughaibu]

Sebbysteiny: Sudan has nothing to do with my point, neither have cold-fusion, Darwin or history. You are avoiding the issue with irrelevancies.

[Kriminal99]

Your proof is my trash

 

The first explanation you quoted had nothing to do with perfect or virtual certainty. It was referring to the lack of objectivity of would be "proof" or "facts". Meaning while within the confines of your belief set and interpretation (perhaps MISinterpretation) of the evidence you deem the evidence to be proof, I might know of something that you don't that would have me qualify the evidence a different way. Therefore it is meaningless to refer to evidence as "proof" or "facts" to a third party.

 

Where this reasoning leads depends on how adept the reasoner is.

 

Kill the killer space monkeys

 

Genocide being bad is not a universal truth. To begin with you use a vague term like "bad" with no specification. Perhaps if someone like hitler were to succeed the intellectual ability of the human race would evolve faster (if it is evolving at all now). You might still claim that was morally bad, but thats not what you said. Furthermore it doesn't take a wild stretch of imagination to realize that a particuarly dangerous predator of humans might need to be eliminated. Consider a killer space monkey within 10 miles of which all humans died.

 

Irony...

 

This is one example where any degree of understanding of plurality of coherentism would have helped you. Here you stomp your feet and declare by fiat that my definition of knowledge is wrong and then go on to state your own definition which is essentially the SAME THING.

 

If you equate "every known observation" to "all evidence you could possibly obtain" and "corresponds with" to "having objectively considered any alternative explanation you could think of or find <for the evidence/observations>" you arrive at the same definition of knowledge.

 

Perhaps you would not equate one of these things exactly, but then an understanding of PoC would have allowed you to focus on that difference. Had I been in your shoes I would have cited any differences in the 2 definitions using my opponent's own terminology.

 

Perhaps you wish to exclude informal observations - I agree to excluding any 3rd person observations that there is any reason to doubt (formality notwithstanding), but I would not throw out any 1st person observations formal or not. Maybe you underestimate the complexity of "corresponds with". Observations alone do nothing, reasoning is required to make a theory out of them and where there is reasoning there is potential errors in reasoning or alternative reasoning.

 

Plurality of coherentism would also tell you that given a set of constraints (experimental observations of quantum phenomenon) there are potentially infinite belief sets (alternate theories to QM) that satisfy or are coherent (correspond) with those constraints. Now one might wish to add the rest of the constraints of the world, but that might be foolish since so far we believe all our other experience to be dependent on quantum phenomenon.

 

I will get into the specifics of QM in another thread...

 

Global skepticism just paves the way for lesser skepticism

 

Imagine that you are a forensic scientist and you convict someone using the same process you have used a million times before. Little did you know someone snuck into your lab the night before and messed with your equipment to give false positives. The next week new evidence proves the suspect didn't do it. You simply used the equipment the same way you always did, and nothing appeared different this time. WHat went wrong?

 

Your past experience (previous uses) was not sampled from the population you wished to make a prediction for (after the tampering). And you had no way to know that was the case. This is ALWAYS possible, and global skepticism's purpose is just to say "HEY DOOFUS! You dont even know you are here how do you know anything else (such as that your equipment wasn't altered)?

 

Bank example clarified

 

My coworker did not arrive at the same result as I. She did not realize that despite her 30 yrs taking altered checks without incident that a loss could occur and that the bank is signifigantly impacted by tellers accepting them (across all of the banks operations)

 

She also did not realize there was a scenario where a loss would occur where the check presenter (who she knew well) was not the culprit.

 

Both of these demonstrate a lack of understanding of the limits of induction.

 

There is no virtual certainty, Statistics recognizes its own circularity

 

A fundamental assumption of all statistical reasoning is that you have sampled randomly from the population you hope to make predictions for. This being the extent that this assumption is explained in many statistics textbooks, Statistics has defeated itself right off the bat. This is because you cannot sample randomly from the future, and ultimately making predictions from the future is always the goal.

 

You can alter this assumption to be that the two population (sample and prediction populations) are the same in every way that might affect your predictions, but that is often an unfounded assumption. Given that a small passage of time doesn't cause a signifigant difference in the populations (or a large passage of time if the observations are older) there are still potentiall infinite sources of bias. Maybe you call people at home to take a survey, and your survey reflects only the opinions of people at home during buisness hours instead of the general populace. By the way, an example of a situation where the passage of time assumption is violated is the stock market - which is notorious for thwarting attempts at "technical analysis" (statistical).

 

You also might realize that this means that hidden variable theory CANNOT BE DISPROVEN by any statistical argument, since any statiscal argument depends on the assumption that hidden variable theory is not the case.

 

Generalizations

 

The reasoning that you should fire the crazy employee is not based on 4 data points. It is based on your past experiences which includes god knows how many data points.

 

By logical, I simply meant that logic (at least the kind of logic I play with) involves deductive reasoning not fallabe inductive reasoning. The only way any induction can become deduction is if the two situations (the one you are generalizing from and the one you generalize to) are alike in every way necessary to provide the same result. Of course you can only reason that such is the case through induction....

 

Because you never have any evidence that your past experiences are sampled from the same population you hope to make a prediction for (aka hidden variable theory) I would never call induction (generalization) logical.

 

Squirrel with regards to words of others, not actions

 

Everyone might verbally agree with the statement regarding carefully considering alternative explanations, but few actually do it. When I have a discussion with someone, I listen intently to them when they talk, and only after carefully formulate counterarguments. My experience is that the vast majority of people instead yell over your arguments and completely ignore what you say and repeat their arguments. In written debate this same sentiment is realized through things like failing to understand or respond to the opponent's actual arguments or looking for mods or like minded people to gang up on and squelch one's opponent. Most people are walking around with cotton balls in their ears. Philosophy helps you understand that to do this is ignorance, and how to conduct yourself if you want to have knowledge.

 

Gotta watch dem hatas

 

Plurality of Coherentism isn't about raising your english grade (not saying thats what you meant) Coherentism is what allows me to go to a ghetto in LA and have the same argument about "straw men epidemic" with them in ebonics as I have with forum members here in normal language.

 

In Defense of a tater

 

In the past Dictatorships have been defended as being decisive and by saying that some enviornments are so hostile that a firm hand is needed. I don't necessarily agree, but dictatorships are not universally objectively bad.

 

Influence

 

I wouldn't even call it the influence of philosophy on other disciplines. Rather I would refer to philosophy as the general form of all knowledge and all intellectual disciplines as subsets of philosophy. Philosophy deals with reason itself and provides results that are true regarding all human claims. That is why every philosophical argument can be applied to specific disciplines and often results in signifigant advances in those disciplines.

[sebbysteiny]

From an historical perspective it is arguable that philosophy has played a role in the formation of government, e.g. the U.S., but that's only to say it's sufficient and not necessary.

 

I think this is a very good way of saying. QP. So, the question is, is sufficient but not necessary enough to qualify as a real practical use?

 

ps, are you a lawyer?

 

The only question which you might pose if I am unlucky is whether, since I clearly believe there is a use for this thread [in particular, whether or not philosophy departments get funded] does that in itself prove philsophy has a practical utility?

 

Consider it posed, as that was the underlying punch, which you seem to have beaten me to.

 

Is that really worth exploring? Do you, after 13 pages, seek to try and justify a use for philosophy by arguing solely that questioning it's use has a practical use regarding funding of philosphy departments? Surely there are ways to tackle this on the merits rather than aiming at technicalities akin to letting a guy off for murder simply because the policeman did not deliver his caution properly???

 

If you really wish to push this, that's great. But, if you win it, do you really want to win it on those grounds?

 

Sebbysteiny: Sudan has nothing to do with my point, neither have cold-fusion, Darwin or history. You are avoiding the issue with irrelevancies.

 

With respect they are direct and complete answers. Archeology is not that different from history and history has a clear and present use in dealing with today's problems. And every field of science has been responsible for some kind of technicalogical revolution.

 

Since [hot] nuclear fusion goes on in every star, I think astronomy has every right in claiming some kind of credit for our growing abilities to use fusion for energy. Not to mention satalites and other space age technology.

 

Every example you quoted as being 'no less useful than philsophy' has a clear and direct practical usage. The issue is, can Philosophy? 13 pages later, it's still undecided.

 

Your proof is my trash

 

The first explanation you quoted had nothing to do with perfect or virtual certainty. It was referring to the lack of objectivity of would be "proof" or "facts". Meaning while within the confines of your belief set and interpretation (perhaps MISinterpretation) of the evidence you deem the evidence to be proof, I might know of something that you don't that would have me qualify the evidence a different way. Therefore it is meaningless to refer to evidence as "proof" or "facts" to a third party.

 

I'm not really understanding where, according to your arguments and examples, the philsophy ends and the statistics begins. It is certain that you can't simply use the statistical validity of statistical conclusions, which is accepted by statasticians and scientists, as being some kind of unique philosophical position.

 

Using your example, one person's truth is not another person's falsehood.

 

No scientist on Earth would argue that a single person making observations of an event that might be very unlikely and finding nothing is evidence.

 

However, things change drastically when you have an overwhelming abundance of evidence. If every employee in every bank in every country apart from one person failed to come accross a forgery, THEN it is statistically valid to say that no forgery risk exists even if that other person has not yet been questioned.

 

'yes but it might'?

 

According to quantum mechanics, there is a statistical chance that, though quantum fluctuations, you can walk through a wall. Sure, it might take a hundred million universes to do so, but it can happen.

 

So are you going to start building hundreds of theories, laws and regulations based on the assumption that people can walk though laws???? Just because an idea is not disproved to perfect certainty, doesn't mean it is a legitimate view or an acceptable alternative to fact.

 

 

Kill the killer space monkeys

 

Genocide being bad is not a universal truth.

 

Well, if it's not a 'universal truth' how come you will struggle to find any reasonable person perpared to accept it?

 

Don't get me wrong, intellectually / philosphically, you are right. What is truth? Opinion? Who says what is right? etc. We all know these arguments and the type of bollocks wish washy rubbish you get from them.

 

Let me ask you this question. What is the purpose of this question? What do you achieve? Because I submit that aiding and abbetting the far right to commit genocide is not a purpose that is worthy of funding.

 

This is one example where any degree of understanding of plurality of coherentism would have helped you. Here you stomp your feet and declare by fiat that my definition of knowledge is wrong and then go on to state your own definition which is essentially the SAME THING.

 

I'm not disputing the wisdom of much of what you say. What I'm debating is which accademic discipline gets the credit for it.

 

If you equate "every known observation" to "all evidence you could possibly obtain" and "corresponds with" to "having objectively considered any alternative explanation you could think of or find <for the evidence/observations>" you arrive at the same definition of knowledge.

 

There's considering any alternative explanation, and there's considering any alternative explanation.

 

The courts, for example consider as many alternative explanations for the events as possible before finding somebody guilty of, say, murder. Aliens abducting, putting a chip in the brain, overriding the control of that person and then commanding that person against his will to cut up their victim into pieces is not one of them.

 

The word of the day is, 'plausable'.

 

Plurality of Coherentism isn't about raising your english grade (not saying thats what you meant) Coherentism is what allows me to go to a ghetto in LA and have the same argument about "straw men epidemic" with them in ebonics as I have with forum members here in normal language.

 

Rolf. Sod this thread. Now this, I've gotta see.

'ner man, I ain't said that brov!'

 

I'm in stitches just thinking about it.

 

I wouldn't even call it the influence of philosophy on other disciplines. Rather I would refer to philosophy as the general form of all knowledge and all intellectual disciplines as subsets of philosophy.

 

I was very close to quoting my standard test of what is and what is not philosophy. Then I saw the second half.

 

That is why every philosophical argument can be applied to specific disciplines and often results in signifigant advances in those disciplines.

 

Now this is something that you need to establish. If you can find a direct link from a philosophical argument to an advance in another accademic discipline, then that is a use. This is was my second test.

 

Unfortunately, here you need a much closer link than simply 'inspires' an advance; it must play an actual guiding hand in making the progress to the point that the advance could not be made without it.

 

So this has confused me because I suggested two tests and you appeared to take the easy bits of one test and the easy bits of the other and arguing that you have satisfied one or either test.

 

So here are my tests again and I invite you to state which one you are trying for: the second; or the third / last.

 

But there is a second chance of proving me wrong if the philosophical vision was so intertwined amongst the physics as to be almost unseperable. If arguments of Plato were somehow directly translated into numbers in Einstein's attempted theory, then again you have proven me wrong.

 

The last chance is that the philsophical vision was used not as part of the theory but as inspiration for the theory then Philosophy could be said to have a use but only indirectly

 

These tests are the only logical ways I can see of proving me wrong. It is simple deduction, the more indirect the influence of philsophy is for an achievement, the more questionable it is as to whether philosophy can get any credit for it. Taken to the extreme, I read a philosophy book once. Does that mean that philsophy can take credit for everything I have ever achieved in life???? So please tie yourself down and pick a test to attack me on.

[sebbysteiny]

All I want to say here is that I think we should all appreciate the effort Kriminal99 goes to in arguing his points. I agree his posts are long and sometimes tangental, but by definition, sometimes they are not.

 

So QP for general contribution.

[Kriminal99]

 

I'm not really understanding where, according to your arguments and examples, the philsophy ends and the statistics begins.

 

Absolutely nowhere. Perhaps I should limit my post lengths, I hope you at least looked at the statistics recognizes it's own circularity section of my last post. You conduct a scientific experiment "proving" that your drug reduces risk of heart attack. I look at your experiment and reason that you sampled on a street corner near a coffee shop getting an unrepresentitive proportion of coffee drinkers, and that perhaps your drug is just more adpet at mitigating the effects of caffiene than preventing heart disease in general. Maybe you did it on purpose to sell your drug. Maybe you just didn't realize. A group of all caucasian scientists who are all kkk members in their spare time discover "scientific proof" that some races are inferior. Do I even have to look?

 

Pretty soon you come to a realization- Any time someone is trying to convince you of something using "scientific evidence" they have a motive to

 

A) Purposely bias the experiment

:confused: Turn a blind eye to any potential problems or sources of bias even if they aren't

 

Some people go on an on about peer review. Well guess what? It just isn't good enough! Unless the reviewing peer is my good neighbor who I know well and trust (and know that he shares all the same biases as I) the "reviewing peer" is indistinguishable from the KKK members patting each other on the back in the above "proof of racial inferiority" argument.

 

Now on the otherhand if the peer IS my good neighbor whom I trust both to share my interests and to be competent, then it is a different story. Thats why an entity full of people with the same biases isn't foolish to fund r&d. If they produce something I can see does what its supposed to and nothing else, theres no reason to doubt the science behind it. Also if I can informally test a particular result pretty easily myself then I don't have to worry abuot the science I can just try and disprove it myself if I want.

 

The next step in the evolution of knowledge gathering is to throw out the idea of "objective science" conducted by someone you don't know, and to replace it with a personal understanding of philosophy and self-skepticism such that everything uses something similar to the scientific method in their everyday lives gathering information about their surroundings.

 

However, things change drastically when you have an overwhelming abundance of evidence. If every employee in every bank in every country apart from one person failed to come accross a forgery, THEN it is statistically valid to say that no forgery risk exists even if that other person has not yet been questioned.

 

Irrelevant to the fact that her ignorance of the limits of induction caused her to come to an incorrect conclusion. I will note however that her reasoning was not incorrect a "hasty generalization" given that it was based on 30 years experience. Furthermore to continue with the theme of this post, if tommorow was national check fraud day then it would be foolish to depend on a history of no fraud, unless enough of that evidence was sampled from "national check fraud days". Of course maybe everyone doesn't know about that particular holiday, only fraudsters do... Getting the whole "not randomly sampled from population you make predictions for" thing yet?

 

According to quantum mechanics, there is a statistical chance that, though quantum fluctuations, you can walk through a wall. Sure, it might take a hundred million universes to do so, but it can happen.

 

So are you going to start building hundreds of theories, laws and regulations based on the assumption that people can walk though laws???? Just because an idea is not disproved to perfect certainty, doesn't mean it is a legitimate view or an acceptable alternative to fact.

 

You still do not understand the limits of induction. Without the ASSUMPTION (sometimes unfounded assumption) that your past experience was sampled from the same population you hope to make a prediction for the odds of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ARE 50/50. You must look at every case and look for any reason why the new situation might be different, and even if you find no such reason the assumption is still very much capable of being violated. Statistical reasoning is CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR. Until you understand and can respond to this, you need to stop replying to me and fighting me on smaller points.

 

 

Well, if it's not a 'universal truth' how come you will struggle to find any reasonable person perpared to accept it?

 

Don't get me wrong, intellectually / philosphically, you are right. What is truth? Opinion? Who says what is right? etc. We all know these arguments and the type of bollocks wish washy rubbish you get from them.

 

Let me ask you this question. What is the purpose of this question? What do you achieve? Because I submit that aiding and abbetting the far right to commit genocide is not a purpose that is worthy of funding.

 

To teach you that you are always engaging in philosophy whether you like it or not. What if a government prevented all people with an IQ less than 100 from reproducing (not having sex, just reproducing)? What if most of a race was included in that so effectively genocide was commited?

 

There's considering any alternative explanation, and there's considering any alternative explanation.

 

The courts, for example consider as many alternative explanations for the events as possible before finding somebody guilty of, say, murder. Aliens abducting, putting a chip in the brain, overriding the control of that person and then commanding that person against his will to cut up their victim into pieces is not one of them.

 

The word of the day is, 'plausable'.

 

A very vague qualifier.

 

Just because someone has a counterargument to your belief doesn't mean you should throw out yours by philosophical standards. Rather you gather information and evidence on the counterargument, try to reconcile it with what you know etc. If the other person runs out of things to say about it or just keeps repeating the same thing over and over and not listening to your counterargument then you just conclude that you don't have a relaible source of information on that alternative theory so you can't consider it further.

 

Rolf. Sod this thread. Now this, I've gotta see.

'ner man, I ain't said that brov!'

 

I'm in stitches just thinking about it.

 

I don't live in LA, but I have basically done this before. The same knowledge would allow you to go lecture church goers perhaps citing bible references that teach the same lessons, or just listen to anyone talk and use their language to make your points.

 

Now this is something that you need to establish. If you can find a direct link from a philosophical argument to an advance in another accademic discipline, then that is a use. This is was my second test.

....

These tests are the only logical ways I can see of proving me wrong. It is simple deduction, the more indirect the influence of philsophy is for an achievement, the more questionable it is as to whether philosophy can get any credit for it. Taken to the extreme, I read a philosophy book once. Does that mean that philsophy can take credit for everything I have ever achieved in life???? So please tie yourself down and pick a test to attack me on.

 

Your lack of understanding of the usefulness of philosophy is not particuarly signifigant or unusual, nor do I feel particuarly obligated to meet your uninformed standards for establishing the usefulness of philosophy.

 

Philosophy, for the people who understand it, increases the efficiency with which they do everything that they do by allowing them to better understand and model every detail of the world around them.

 

To try and show the impact of this to someone who has little understanding of philosophy is perhaps a fool's errand, although maybe it can be done. Who knows for sure which philosophical truth each brilliant mind in history applied to their specific discipline to come up with each advance? One would need to be inside their mind to see for sure, though we can speculate by looking at close links between philosophical arguments and arguments in specific disciplines.

 

This statement is false > russel paradox

 

Thought experiments (xeno etc) > How to treat concepts like infinity mathematically

 

How could einstein have possibly thought of special relativity if he could never doubt that time always passes at the same rate?

 

Ah you know what forget it. Go measure the half life of some unstable isotope for the rest of your life if thats what you want and leave the formulation of theories to someone who can handle it. We need that kind of scientist after all... just like we need someone to flip the burgers at mcdonalds...

[ughaibu]

Sebbysteiny: Your examples are quite obviously neither direct nor complete, as a response they are only complete in their unsatisfactoriness. Even if it's accepted that prevention of situations such as that in the Sudan, is the business of archeology, how does the fact that the situation presently exists justify the pursuit of archeology? How does a possibility, mooted for thirty years in the future, justify cosmology and mathematics? How does genetic science justify digging up fossils?

In any case, even if these examples are accepted, they are entirely irrelevant to the fact that the great majority of work done, in the fields mentioned, is not only useless in everyday life, it is even of no interest to most people working in those disciplines.

Finally, the question of philosophers studying problems related to the degree of responsibility with which a computer can be trusted is entirely relevant to this thread, your remark, "another thread, me thinks", is as bare-faced an avoidance of the issue as I've ever seen.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Coherentism is what allows me to go to a ghetto in LA and have the same argument about "straw men epidemic" with them in ebonics as I have with forum members here in normal language.

 

"Normal" language? There's a line here.

 

Is that really worth exploring? Do you, after 13 pages, seek to try and justify a use for philosophy by arguing solely that questioning it's use has a practical use regarding funding of philosphy departments? Surely there are ways to tackle this on the merits rather than aiming at technicalities akin to letting a guy off for murder simply because the policeman did not deliver his caution properly???

 

If you really wish to push this, that's great. But, if you win it, do you really want to win it on those grounds?

 

Sure it's worth exploring sebby. I frankly don't understand the distinction between philosophizing about the utility of philosophy and just philosophizing. How will this be of any practical utility? Because we will "decide" whether or not philosophy departments should exist? Could you apply this same discussion to any college department? I could claim that art was useless because it never cured a disease. In other words - "Why are certain things worth thinking about?"

 

Philosophy isn't all ontology.

 

In any case, you've made the tacit claim that in order to receive "taxpayer" money that something should be useful. You have, I think, equated "worthwhile" and "of practical utility."

 

I think this is a false equity, and since you've made the claim, you get to defend it. What is meant by "practical?" Can you think of anything worthwhile that is NOT of practical utility? Couldn't you claim that lawyers are of no practical utility since they obscure the truth in jargon and legal maneuvering? Does something need to be "good" to be "practical?"

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Until you understand and can respond to this, you need to stop replying to me and fighting me on smaller points.

 

Your lack of understanding of the usefulness of philosophy is not particuarly signifigant or unusual, nor do I feel particuarly obligated to meet your uninformed standards for establishing the usefulness of philosophy.

 

Philosophy, for the people who understand it...

 

Ah you know what forget it. Go measure the half life of some unstable isotope for the rest of your life and leave the formulation of theories to someone who can handle it. We need that kind of scientist after all... just like we need someone to flip the burgers at mcdonalds...

 

;) :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

Such a shame. And just after I gave you QP's too. I don't tollerate rudeness and I don't accept being told what I should and shouldn't respond to. It's my response to comments such as these that have got me in such trouble with the moniters in the first place.

 

What makes your judgement about what is and is not important better than mine? I respect your judgement and if you feel we are hitting tangents or we have not correctly identified the bits where we disagree, then you can say so. But in return, I demand equal respect from you to me.

 

Believe me, this is the weakest response to such language I've had for a long time.

 

I'm going to overlook this once and only once and respond calmly to the points you have made on their merits. In return, I expect a more respectful tone.

 

The next part of this post deals with the idea that Science can somehow be bias. This is tangental, but it is relevent since Kriminal99, if I understand him, is saying that since science is so maliable to personal and unintended biases, only philosophy can be trusted to determine what is or what is not a fact.

 

I'm not really understanding where, according to your arguments and examples, the philsophy ends and the statistics begins.

 

Absolutely nowhere.

 

Fantastic. And now we resolve one of the issues where we have got our wires crossed. I was kind of thinking you were giving some kind of justification to questioning all science and statistcs based on the faults of induction; a conclusion that is not scientificly or statistically credible. Instead you were simply confirming the principals of statistics that every scientist and statistician worth their sole is fully aware of and has taken practical measures to reduce to a minimum, which, in many cases, is zero.

 

So then where is our argument?

 

It is very difficult for me to see where we differ, yet our conclusions are so different.

 

I'm thinking that whereas I think it's one thing to design a bad experiment that rely's on the limitations of induction to produce questionable results. It's quite another to say that every conclusion found by induction (including the validity of the scientific method and our very existance) might produce questionable results. The first is statistics. The second is philosophy. And that, I'm thinking, is where we differ.

 

Perhaps I should limit my post lengths

Nooooooo. If you want to establish a complicated point, you need more than a single liner. Cutting out 'irrelivent' points is good, but nobody can be perfectly relevant every time. I'd rather read too much than too little.

 

You conduct a scientific experiment "proving" that your drug reduces risk of heart attack. I look at your experiment and reason that you sampled on a street corner near a coffee shop getting an unrepresentitive proportion of coffee drinkers, and that perhaps your drug is just more adpet at mitigating the effects of caffiene than preventing heart disease in general.

 

Your experiments seem to be all the same. They are not experiments at all, they are sampling issues. But every statistician worth his sole knows all of this and has very complicated and successful means of avoiding such biases. If you looked at my sample and found that every sample was made on the same street corner, then you should not only ignore my conclusions but apply to get me disbarred from all scientific bodies and make my name so disgraced that my reputation for negligence alone is enough to guarantee never getting a job in science or statistics again. I think you have seriously underestimated the extent to which statisticians go to eliminate such influences and the degree to which they are successful.

 

A group of all caucasian scientists who are all kkk members in their spare time discover "scientific proof" that some races are inferior. Do I even have to look?

 

If their work has been approved by a credible scientific institution of journal then yes.

 

But I seriously doubt any such work will survive this stage.

 

Pretty soon you come to a realization- Any time someone is trying to convince you of something using "scientific evidence" they have a motive to

 

A) Purposely bias the experiment

B) Turn a blind eye to any potential problems or sources of bias even if they aren't

 

Hasty Generalisation. And I'm not using it to describe your idea of incorrect use of induction. I'm now saying you yourself have just made this logical fallacy.

 

Sampling techniques are just one of many types of scientific evidence and data. Even if you are right about sampling, none of the other forms of gathering scientific evidence (eg) experimentation can possibly be effected by either A or B. Discrediting one such type of scientific evidence does not discredit the others.

 

But you are wrong even in sampling methods as your arguments only hold for the most negligent of statisticians.

 

A) Experiments or observations are just that. Every bit of equipment must be noted down stating exactly where they are and why. The construction of the apparatus must be explained to perfection. Further, once a result is found, a paper will be submitted for publishing in a scientific journal. During this stage, impartial and opposing scientists will rush to re create that experminet. If they get any results other than that suggested by the original bias scientist, the paper will be rejected by the scientific community. And if there is a suspicion of fraud, then the bias scientist's name will be disgraced forever.

 

Now, unless your saying that personal biases can change the laws of physics, where is the room for bias in that?

 

Sampling recieves similar scrutany. Instead of noting down the positions and use of equipment, they note down exactly how the sample was taken, where, how many times and all the measures they used to illiminate other sources of error. Opponents will then scour that information and, should they find anything that puts a serious question on the reliability of the evidence, it will not be accepted by the scientific community. Again, fraud will result in disgrace. Sure, you might get poltically motivated bias and dubious evidence published in the press. But all of that will not be accepted by the scientific community unless it conforms to the high standards required.

 

So again, where is the room for bias?

 

B) Any blind eye turned to potential sources of bias will not survive the review necessary for publishing. This applies to experimentation and sampling.

 

With respect, you do not seem to know anything about the above proceedures (both experiments and sampling) and have almost no knowledge about the sophisticated methods that are used to successfully overcome the fairly obvious statistical problems you are pointing out. I think it amazing that you think that your view, namely that the factors listed above make science and statistics unreliable, which is based on a very basic knowledge of statistics, is somehow more credible that the conclusion of every expert who has spent their lives successfully eliminating these problems.

 

Some people go on an on about peer review. Well guess what? It just isn't good enough! Unless the reviewing peer is my good neighbor who I know well and trust (and know that he shares all the same biases as I) the "reviewing peer" is indistinguishable from the KKK members patting each other on the back in the above "proof of racial inferiority" argument.

 

It really should be enough.

 

The next step in the evolution of knowledge gathering is to throw out the idea of "objective science" conducted by someone you don't know

 

:eek: :eek:

My god. This is what I'm talking about. You have no rational reason for throwing out knowledge in this way. You can't just throw out knowledge simply because somebody else found it. Yes, there are philosophical implications regarding to the logical validity of our ability to perceive at all, but using those implications to fallaciously try to undermine all knowledge as if it is somehow questionable undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it.

 

It seems to me that your 'rational' excuse for being sceptical about science is based entirely on phantom influences that do not actually exist.

 

Why are we arguing this?

You must look at every case and look for any reason why the new situation might be different, and even if you find no such reason the assumption is still very much capable of being violated.

 

You are trying to say that if it wasn't for philosophy, people like Einstein would not have come pushing forward science by questioning existing knowledge. That's rubbish. All accademic disciplines search continuously for new knowledge to confirm that their theories still hold in new situations. All that is needed is an enquiring mind and philsophy is not essential for an enquiring mind.

 

You are going well beyond this. Instead of simply questioning whether theories hold OUTSIDE the scope of observations already made, you are questioning whether theories hold WITHIN the scope of observations already made. Eg, since we could not experience particles close to the speed of light, there was no way to see relativistic effects. So it was okay for Einstein to say that effects observed at speeds close to light would differ from Newtons laws. But it is an unthinkable assault on truth for Einstein to argue that Newton's laws did not hold for particles travelling at every day speeds. Not surprisingly, he never made that claim, hence he is a respected genius and not a crack pot philosopher.

 

You still do not understand the limits of induction.

Really?? You see, I kinda think I do. Since induction is only found on events of the past, there is no absolute formal perfect guarantee that the future will mirror the past. We might wake up and find ourselfs as slaves, building a faster than light space ship for bannanas that eat monkeys humming 'god saved the queen'. Well we might? We can't PROVE it can we? Hence the philsophical limits of induction.

 

Without the ASSUMPTION (sometimes unfounded assumption) that your past experience was sampled from the same population you hope to make a prediction for the odds of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ARE 50/50.

 

Perhaps, this is where we disagree. I say the odds are nothing like 50/50. I'd LOVE to see your calculations. Instead, I think the odds are 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (with another trillion more 9's) : approximately zero.

 

The existance of two alternatives does not imply equal probabilistic weight.

I strongly suggest you give up on this one as your other attacks are far stronger.

 

Tangental

 

debate

 

over

 

Your lack of understanding of the usefulness of philosophy is not particuarly signifigant or unusual, nor do I feel particuarly obligated to meet your uninformed standards for establishing the usefulness of philosophy.

 

Well then by all means suggest your alternative test. My 'tests' were only summaries of the possible ways I suspect you are trying to argue this point.

 

But you have to acknowledge surely that if philosophy only played some kind indirect, inspirational role, it is extremely argueable as to whether it is sufficient for philsophy to take any credit whatsoever. And the greater the role played by philosophy, the easier it is to argue that philosphy took any credit. If you agree with that, you accept both tests.

 

Cmon man. I'm trying to answer the question as to whether or not philosophy used as a source of inspiration is enough to be a real and practical use. Work with me:shrug: .

 

Philosophy, for the people who understand it, increases the efficiency with which they do everything that they do by allowing them to better understand and model every detail of the world around them.

 

The argument is, if you do philsophy, it increases efficiency of thinking making you better at doing whatever it is you were doing.

 

Is this the same as saying philsophy has a use

 

as a form of exercise. Nothing more than taking your brain for a walk.

?

 

It sounds very similar.

 

How could einstein have possibly thought of special relativity if he could never doubt that time always passes at the same rate?

See above.

 

Ah you know what forget it. Go measure the half life of some unstable isotope for the rest of your life if thats what you want and leave the formulation of theories to someone who can handle it. We need that kind of scientist after all... just like we need someone to flip the burgers at mcdonalds...

 

An extremely cheap strawman. Thinking outside the box is good. Challenging assumptions that have not been fully tested is good. Philosophy is only unique from other disciplines in that it challenges assumptions that HAVE been fully tested.

 

 

Now for the other members :).

 

Sebbysteiny: Your examples are quite obviously neither direct nor complete, as a response they are only complete in their unsatisfactoriness.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, without anything else to go on [eg reasons and a requirment of the type of information you wanted to see], there was nothing I could do.

 

Even if it's accepted that prevention of situations such as that in the Sudan, is the business of archeology, how does the fact that the situation presently exists justify the pursuit of archeology?

 

It's not that it presently exists. It's that there is a problem and we need to solve it. And the solution may be found in history, sometimes ancient history. So it's assistance to solve present day problems gives it a real and practical use.

 

Archiology is used to discover historical evidence. Knowing about, say, the Roman civilisation may uncover a problem that is used today. For example, if we find evidence that the Romans stopped a genocide, we could analyse it and see if we could use it today for Sudan. Likewise, they might find a simple drainage principal that could revolutionise our cities.

 

Archiology could also stimulate economies through tourism caused by a new discovery. Egypt is certainly not regretting it's high investment in archiologists. Neither is Peru.

 

And that is ignoring the huge amounts of information we could get about ourselves. But since the above two have already won the case as far as I can see, I don't need to get into the debate about whether learning about ourselves amounts to a 'practical use'.

 

I could write a book on this.

 

How does a possibility, mooted for thirty years in the future, justify cosmology and mathematics?

In the same way that pension schemes have a real practical use. In 30 years time, the world will be a better place. Ergo, use.

 

In any case, even if these examples are accepted, they are entirely irrelevant to the fact that the great majority of work done, in the fields mentioned, is not only useless in everyday life, it is even of no interest to most people working in those disciplines.

 

It's a reasonable attack. I can see myself being pressured into saying something like

 

"It teaches us about ourselves and / or it satisfies our interest and / or it provides an inspiration or a rewarding experience that increases our quality of life".

 

You will then retort with

 

"but so does philosophy, ha ha, so does philosophy".

 

Even though I think there may be distinctions to be made, it will still be a head banger.

 

So I'm not going to do that.

 

Instead, I'm going to simply say that the practical utility of other subjects is not under question here. :hihi: The fact is that almost all fields in almost all subjects have a practical utility. Philosophy is not amongst them.

 

If you can find other fields, great. We should debate them in another thread and then decide whether or not that subject should also have it's funding cut:lol:.

 

Great. Problem solved. Next!

 

Finally, the question of philosophers studying problems related to the degree of responsibility with which a computer can be trusted is entirely relevant to this thread, your remark, "another thread, me thinks", is [not sufficient].

 

The discussion you talk about is definately philosophy. But surely, when the technology arrives, it's more a question of science or economics to see if the technology passes safety standards? So where might the discussion actually be useful? :friday:

 

 

Is that really worth exploring? Do you, after 13 pages, seek to try and justify a use for philosophy by arguing solely that questioning it's use has a practical use regarding funding of philosphy departments? Surely there are ways to tackle this on the merits rather than aiming at technicalities akin to letting a guy off for murder simply because the policeman did not deliver his caution properly???

 

If you really wish to push this, that's great. But, if you win it, do you really want to win it on those grounds?

Sure

 

Grumble grumble, very well.

 

I frankly don't understand the distinction between philosophizing about the utility of philosophy and just philosophizing.

 

Quite right, they are both philosophy. The distinction is that one undermines the other. But still, they are both philsophy and my original premise was that

 

Philsophy truly sucks

 

Maybe someone can think of a way out of this technicality but I can't.

 

I think I'm going to have to make my first formal concession.:)

 

My original thesis that

 

Philosophy truly sucks

:) :)

 

Is hereby altered to :hyper:

 

Philsophy truly sucks with the exception of the part of philosophy that is used to undermine it.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

It's a victory, but, I think you'll agree when I say, it doesn't win the war. Such is the nature of relying on technicalities :(.

 

Could you apply this same discussion to any college department? I could claim that art was useless because it never cured a disease. In other words - "Why are certain things worth thinking about?"

 

I think this is a new attack, or at the very least, a new variation on an old theme.

 

There do seem similarities with Ughaibu's points which I most skillfully dodged if I don't say so myself:hihi: . But I don't want to dodge it here since Ughaibu's post was centred on the more obscure subjects (appologies to achiologists). Art, though seems to be a fundamental subject, which, if held to have no practical utility, seems to take the sting out of the 'practical utility' criticism since it may then leave just science. :eek:

 

Don't want to go down that road. It looks nasty with lots of horrible scary monsters with big teeth dotted around.

 

What is the practical purpose of Art?

 

Art is expression. As is English. People can look at a picture and get a whole range of ideas. It can (and usually does) contain messages many of which may be provoking. Art can capture the moment of revolution and even perhaps spark it.

 

From this, it follows, art has 3 uses:

1) as a medium for communication;

2) as a medium for emotional stimulation / inspiration; and

3) as a medium for entertainment.

 

What will you guys make of my analysis? I strongly doubt you guys will criticise 1. 1) thus gives art the same status as English and History in terms of pratical utility. As many of those ideas communicated may have practical utility in the same way as any other language. So it is enough to establish art as having a practical utility. Philosophy is constrained to philosophical ideas :eek: [yeah I know, statingtheobvious.com] so 1) does not apply to it.

 

2) People here have been trying to argue that philosophy inspires ideas therefore it should take credit and I have been arguing against that as being a 'practical purpose'. I am inclined, but by no means certain, to say that 2) amounts to a practical utility for Art. If so, is it different from philosophy?

 

:xx:

Not sure. Tricky one.

 

3) Entertainment does not count as an accademic subject. I think we agree on that.

 

Hmmmm, tricky one. Not easy by any means. I'll get back to you on that.

 

Naturally, that means a QP.

 

 

Conclusions

 

Some attacks are getting fiercer. Whilst I still judge myself to be treading water, the water is becomming tiring and it's get increasinly hard to support myself. I even had to ammend my thesis slightly, but I don't think I'm drowned quite yet.

 

However, on points, I think I'll give the last 2 pages of posts to the vaste majority arguing against just me :( .

 

But no killer blows yet I think.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Nothing in this post should be taken as intended

 

Very well, I'll take it as you didn't intend it.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

TFS

[CraigD]

My original thesis that

Philosophy truly sucks

:xx: ;)

 

Is hereby altered to :friday:

Philsophy truly sucks with the exception of the part of philosophy that is used to undermine it.

Ironically, this alteration embodies a well-known principle typically considered within the magisterium of Philosophy - the (previously mentioned in this thread) “principle of philosophy” attributed to Aquinas, “Never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish” - to arrive at a conclusion also considered within that magisterium – the Socratic idea that “wisdom is limited to an awareness of one’s own ignorance”.

The ultimate question really comes down to whether or not it is worth funding philosophy departments at all.

I believe that this is commonly called an “academic question” (no pun intended) – one to which the answer has no practical consequences. Regardless of whether a particular individual or collection of individuals achieves a “yes” or “no” consensus on this question, philosophy will almost certainly continue to receive funding in both public and private schools, as will Fine Arts, and a plethora of disciplines that many science-minded people consider a waste of time and money. For such a consensus to be of consequence, control of resources must rest in the hands of a few, rather than being distributed in an egalitarian way among many, a social order that appears to have increased over the long term of history, and is likely to continue. Again ironically, had the proposal of 5th century BC sophists and later Greek and other philosophers of a government by “philosopher kings” been ultimately successful, the sort of centralized control of resources necessary for the funding question to be of consequence might more widely exist.

 

An analogy can be draw between a seemingly valueless or even damaging academic subject and ice cream. Although most people know that ice cream poses a variety of health risks, and no significant benefits, it’s unlikely that it will be “unfunded”, because people – and the market – simply like it. As anyone who’s ever assisted an undergrad in selecting an academic schedule, people like Philosophy, too.

 

Practicality aside, I think a cost/benefit analysis of academic Philosophy and other apparently low-value subjects reveals that, even if the subjects were shown to be of effectively no value to present society, it should be preserved for the same reason that evolution appears to preserve atavistic traits: as insurance against change in the environment. I believe that the history of the Dark Ages and Renaissance show how beneficial “impractical” subjects like Philosophy can be. Although earlier civilizations had a considerable body of scientific and technical knowledge, the Renaissance was not initially a revival of this lost knowledge, but of Philosophy and fine arts. Although “hard” Science and Engineering followed, the “soft” Humanities preceded them.

 

I think the relative cost of Philosophy and other Humanities is illustrated by the following old science joke:

 

The dean of a college fallen upon financial hardship calls a meeting of the heads of the Chemistry, Math, and Philosophy departments, explaining that one of the departments must be cut, and asking them to defend their departments.

“Everyone knows the value of Chemistry, “ says the chemist. “All we need are chemicals, glassware, and burners.”

“Math is much more cost-efficient”, retorts the mathematician. “All my department needs is paper, pencils, and erasers.”

“Hah!” pipes the philosopher. “We’re even more efficient – we don’t need the erasers!”

[ughaibu]

Sebbysteiny: That is my point! If "the practical utility of other subjects is not under question here", then neither is the practical utility of philosophy, because various acheivements, of consequence, of philosophy have been mentioned by various members, and because there are issues in philosophy that are directly relevant today. Accordingly, you have not made a meaningful distinction unfavourable to philosophy and your argument has no basis.

 

Apart from this, you have altered your stance several times, this is a tacit admission that your earlier stances were unsupportable and gives the impression that you're continuing this merely with the aim of "winning". Is this the case?

[Syko]

Just a quick remark. I can see a lot of activity on this thread.

My point of view on the question is rather simple, maybe even simplistic but it is good enough for me.

 

My understanding of phylosophy is that it is the conscious use of reason to question and study our world. I would keep it at that and everything else from my point of view is a matter of taste or "politics".

 

All I would say to sebbysteiny is : don't give up philosophy, keep using your brain ! That's what it's all about .

[Kriminal99]

Sebby, your statements about the reliability of science are just flat out WRONG. Where the hell do you get your information?!? You just made it up?

 

I AM A STATISTICIAN!! Scientists come to us with already conducted poorly designed experiments ALL THE TIME and tell us to at least make it at least look statistically signifigant! If we try and tell them they screwed up, guess what? they go somewhere else!

 

Now if there is some hotly debated scientific subject with well funded groups on all sides MAYBE you can substitute the side that you are sure holds your biases as the trustworthy neighbor. But not every scientific issue recieves this type of review from different parties. And all scientific experiments are reviewed by people with a set of biases that are different than the average person: namely that they are all scientists.

 

Induction... take 4,689,320

Now about induction... You still do not understand the limits of induction. How many times can you quote the same arguments without actually reading them? Consider once more this classic example of the limits of induction:

 

You draw an F at the end of a long strip of paper and cover the paper with tape. Then you slowly peel the tape off for the benefit of a person that did not see the paper before. By the time you get near the end of the paper the spectator has a signifigant history with which to reason the paper has no writing. Is he correct in reasoning that there is no writing on the paper? Of course not - either the writing is there or it is not. It is irrelevant whether or not the previous paper had anything written on it.

 

Now let us pick apart this experiment for obviously I do not completely reject inudction or else I would cower at the thought of opening every door. Were I watching this experiment, I would reason that the person would not be doing it were there not some trick or suprise to it. Therefore I would reason that the assumptions of statistics or induction are likely violated in this case.

 

Whereas in my everday life (and where noone I know has designed my enviornment with a certain goal in mind) I make the founding assumptions of induction because there is no alternative. If I were suddenly to appear in a different dimension, you can be sure that I would once again toss out the assumptions of induction and observe carefully before doing anything. Determine how much if any of my previous experience might apply and gather a new pool of experience regarding the new world before becoming less cautious.

 

You seem to have ignored the first part of the claim about 50/50 chance - What I said was that without the assumption that the experience is sampled from the same population that you wish to make predictions for there is a 50/50 chance that anything occur.

 

If you have never seen water before, and you reason based on experience that you can walk on the ground without issue, and you come to a swimming pool. In this case, I would reason that I had never seen such ground before and therefore I should proceed with caution. You reason that you are 99.999999999% likely to be able to walk on the water regardless of what it looks like. This is foolish.

 

If you retract the statement that the history models the past with 99.999999% accuracy without the assumption that your past experience models the population you are making a prediction for, then consider the invisible swimming pool. (This of course being a metaphor for anything that would cause the assumption to be false but that is not easily identified in advance) You simply see land ahead yet when you try to walk in it you fall in the water.

 

THe assumption is always capable of being violated. If you see no reason to believe it, to doubt it is to refuse to make any action for fear something unexpected may occur. But on the other hand if you are given reason to believe that it is violated in a certain situation or with regards to a certain object or place, then you should act as if anything could happen. And when it comes to science, though you may see no reason to doubt this assumption someone else may know something that you do not so it must be left up to each person whether or not they believe the fundamental assumption of induction/statistics is violated.

 

Thinking outside the box is a meaningless to someone who does not understand philosophy. Believing that assumptions can be "fully tested" and then become infallable is ignorance of philosophy. My argument was no straw man, no doubt every great man in history had a signifigant understanding of philosophy which can only be shown to someone who does not understand philosophy by drawing paralells between their achievements and philosophical truths.