If I had to choose one of them to keep around, as they are now, I'd take science. Philosophy is nifty and all, but science is actually useful in a much more real sense.
On the difference between them? Science is more pragmatic and deals more with reality than in possibility (of course, there are things like experimental physics and some cosmological stuff that we struggle to get corroborating data on, but this is not that big a deal to me)
Eh, maybe I'm just not liking it because of how many religious arguments use philosophy as a base and makes claims that the possibility means its probable or even actual.
Eh, maybe I'm just not liking it because of how many religious arguments use philosophy as a base and makes claims that the possibility means its probable or even actual.
Theology is a form of philosophy just like transhumanism is. Looking at the tango between the two extremes; tension from the polar philosophies and a changing reality are the catalysts for new thought and innovation.
Though I am quite well aware that the methodology of both sides, Science and Philosophy, are obviously different, this question is merely out of curiosity and interest of people's viewpoints of the matter.
Is there an inherent difference between Science and Philosophy? In a sense, are there certain assumptions that we make in Philosophy that would not easily be taken as a given in Science, and vice versa? Is Science an extension of Philosophy? How would you draw the thin line between Science and Philosophy, especially when you say, try to compare a Physicist with a PhD thesis and an Analytical Philosopher whose area of focus in Philosophy is Physics?
Yes and no. Science is born out of philosophy, but it has become an entire institution unto itself. Science is basically an idiot proof guide to exploration by cutting out trivial details for it's end goal of physical discovery. Science is limited to what is physically measurable, thus winnowing out more corruptible data to its telos.
In contrast, philosophy does not discard all unmeasurable factors but rather embraces them. Philosophy's measuring instruments are entirely subjective and more emotion's based. Philosophy is one of those "things" you just "do" naturally as a verb from time to time. Philosophy tries to analyze the spectrum of thought itself, but its practical application is equally vast and shallow. This vastness and shallowness is inherently why philosophy is discarded as useless and rebranded as something else.
Science is a maturing subdivision of philosophy with a lot of physical benefits and detriments. Science today is viewed by society as some ambrosia for humanity, for myself I merely see it as a tool ripe for use or misuse like any other human fruit.
Is there an inherent difference between Science and Philosophy? In a sense, are there certain assumptions that we make in Philosophy that would not easily be taken as a given in Science, and vice versa? Is Science an extension of Philosophy? How would you draw the thin line between Science and Philosophy, especially when you say, try to compare a Physicist with a PhD thesis and an Analytical Philosopher whose area of focus in Philosophy is Physics?
Well, I have rather strong opinions on this subject, and expect to be thoroughly trashed for stating them. (I also doubt I will say any more on the subject after staing them)
Philosophy is useless.
Sure, I find it interesting, but I find MtG interesting too. I feel the subject is more or less an old outdated one that should be broken into history and math. Sure, it gave us the science we have today, and I'm not debating that it was once a VERY important subject, but that old important subject has changed into science. What we have left is the study of older philosophy, which should become "history" or "literature" and the study of logic, which IS math.
Now, with a good BS or BA in philosophy you can go on to law school, since it prepares you for making well thought out arguments logical arguments. Also, higher level logic more or less is the study of math, while the higher level study of older philosophies is more or less history, or the study of literature. I guess we still have the need for ethics, but isn't that just law?
I mean, maybe I'm stupid, and someone can tell me why other subjects could also be broken into other subjects, but I just feel like philosophy has more or less run its course, and should be broken up.
That's also an American point of view from an American system, however compared to the European school system they do indeed have philosophy class. Americans tend to not even touch philosophy at any real discernible content level until college. It's a wonder why we have such a divided and segmented view of its usefulness.
The scientific method is cute, but what about it's brother or father found in the school of logic?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Science is philosophy done according to the scientific method. "Proper philosophy" can use other methods as well. You may agree with Taylor and think that it doesn't provide a useful result, but you can't say its done improperly.
Take the Socratic method: It's a legitimate methodology of performing a philosophical analysis. Its not going to get you concrete answers, but thats not always the end goal of philosophy.
Take the Socratic method: It's a legitimate methodology of performing a philosophical analysis.
Not unless some form of observation/empiricism is added to the process. As long as you're keeping entirely to formal logic without empirical data, you have discovered no truths at all.
"If A then B is a True statement" does not say anything. Observe A. Then you'll have some form of truth at your disposal. Until you do, though, you know nothing.
Not unless some form of observation/empiricism is added to the process. As long as you're keeping entirely to formal logic without empirical data, you have discovered no truths at all.
"If A then B is a True statement" does not say anything. Observe A. Then you'll have some form of truth at your disposal. Until you do, though, you know nothing.
The point of philosophy is not only to determine objective facts, if it were then you would be correct.
An answer that isn't concrete isn't an answer to anything.
It certainly is an answer. I don't know why you insist on every answer also being able to have a practical application in order for it to be "proper philosophy".
The point of philosophy is not only to determine objective facts
Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
Truths are objective facts. Something that isn't either objective or a fact isn't true.
Knowledge is objective facts. If something isn't an objective fact, then you don't *know* it. The set of knowledge is a subset of the set of truths. It is the set of truths that are known.
Conduct and being (morality/ethics) *should* be based on truth and knowledge. Hence, philosophy, properly done, is science.
Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
Truths are objective facts. Something that isn't either objective or a fact isn't true.
Knowledge is objective facts. If something isn't an objective fact, then you don't *know* it. The set of knowledge is a subset of the set of truths. It is the set of truths that are known.
Conduct and being (morality/ethics) *should* be based on truth and knowledge. Hence, philosophy, properly done, is science.
See now... you bolded it, so I know you saw it, but you for some reason truncated an important part of that sentence in your analysis... namely the "and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" portion. The fact that those are listed separate from the "truth" portion indicates that they are not, in point of fact, the same thing.
You can't just cut out and ignore the parts you don't like. It's stupid, and intellectually dishonest.
Actually... yes. answers that are not concrete can be quite usefull in many situations. Evolution i8s by no means a "concrete answer" to the question "how did life start" since its not empirically testable (yet?). It is certainly a usefull answer though, in that it helps us model the world around us, and determine things.
Likewise with the philosophical question "what is the purpose of life?" It may not seem usefull to you, or me right now, but tell that to the person who was just convinced not to off themselves because someone explained how they may have a purpose for being here after all... It is usefull in that circumstance...
Actually... yes. answers that are not concrete can be quite usefull in many situations. Evolution i8s by no means a "concrete answer" to the question "how did life start" since its not empirically testable (yet?). It is certainly a usefull answer though, in that it helps us model the world around us, and determine things.
I agree to the fact that evolution is not a concrete answer to the question of how life started. But, that is because evolution does not answer that question. Evolution answers the question of how did life diversify.
And yes, evolution is empirically testable. If it could not be tested, then it would not be a part of science.
I also think the definitions of a "concrete answer" are subjective and vague.
Likewise with the philosophical question "what is the purpose of life?" It may not seem usefull to you, or me right now, but tell that to the person who was just convinced not to off themselves because someone explained how they may have a purpose for being here after all... It is usefull in that circumstance...
Umm... this seems really awkward to read. So, philosophy is used when emotions run high?
Heh, Taylor, I actually said that in my college library on friday I used ****ing useless, but ce's la vie.
bLatch, would you prefer us to go with "Philosophy is pointless"?
Quote from bLatch »
Actually... yes. answers that are not concrete can be quite usefull in many situations. Evolution i8s by no means a "concrete answer" to the question "how did life start" since its not empirically testable (yet?). It is certainly a usefull answer though, in that it helps us model the world around us, and determine things.
Likewise with the philosophical question "what is the purpose of life?" It may not seem usefull to you, or me right now, but tell that to the person who was just convinced not to off themselves because someone explained how they may have a purpose for being here after all... It is usefull in that circumstance...
Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, not evolution. Evolution is, as kurCE described, how life has changed, and how it is changing
I think we're arguing about different versions of philosophy here. Philosophy to answer the question "Where did the universe and everything come from?" and "Why am I alive?" and etc is useless, and is better left to science. Philosophy to answer the question "How should I live my life?", the whole question of politics, and etc is still pretty valid. Science helps philosophy out, providing basic facts to work with.
I would almost call "Buddhism" a philosophy of life rather than a religion (almost). I do call Humanism a philosophy, and it is how I choose to live my life. The thing is, where possible, philosophy should be based on logic and facts, and science provides those facts. The science of psychology and neurobiology plays an important role in this. By understanding what governs our actions and emotions, we can better learn to control those actions and emotions.
Evolution i8s by no means a "concrete answer" to the question "how did life start" since its not empirically testable (yet?).
Not only is evolution empirically testable, it has already been empirically tested. Multiple times. Pick up Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, it's pretty awesome... even if you don't like Dawkins, it's worth it just for the awesome picture of the tattoo on the back of that purple haired biologist chick. (Oh yeah, and the science and stuff. It's cool.)
Not only is evolution empirically testable, it has already been empirically tested. Multiple times. Pick up Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, it's pretty awesome... even if you don't like Dawkins, it's worth it just for the awesome picture of the tattoo on the back of that purple haired biologist chick. (Oh yeah, and the science and stuff. It's cool.)
SignatureReviewed by Jonah LehrerRichard Dawkins begins The Greatest Show on Earth with a short history of his writing career. He explains that all of his previous books have naïvely assumed the fact of evolution, which meant that he never got around to laying out the evidence that it [evolution] is true. This shouldn't be too surprising: science is an edifice of tested assumptions, and just as physicists must assume the truth of gravity before moving on to quantum mechanics, so do biologists depend on the reality of evolution. It's the theory that makes every other theory possible.Yet Dawkins also came to realize that a disturbingly large percentage of the American and British public didn't share his enthusiasm for evolution. In fact, they actively abhorred the idea, since it seemed to contradict the Bible and diminish the role of God. So Dawkins decided to write a book for these history-deniers, in which he would dispassionately demonstrate the truth of evolution beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt.After only a few pages of The Greatest Show on Earth, however, it becomes clear that Dawkins doesn't do dispassionate, and that he's not particularly interested in convincing believers to believe in evolution. He repeatedly compares creationists and Holocaust deniers, which is a peculiar way of reaching out to the other side. Elsewhere, Dawkins calls those who don't subscribe to evolution ignorant, fatuously ignorant and ridiculous. All of which raises the point: who, exactly, is supposed to read this book? Is Dawkins preaching to the choir or trying to convert the uninformed? While The Greatest Show on Earth might fail as a work of persuasive rhetoric—Dawkins is too angry and acerbic to convince his opponents—it succeeds as an encyclopedic summary of evolutionary biology. If Charles Darwin walked into a 21st-century bookstore and wanted to know how his theory had fared, this is the book he should pick up.Dawkins remains a superb translator of complex scientific concepts. It doesn't matter if he's spinning metaphors for the fossil record (like a spy camera in a murder trial) or deftly explaining the method by which scientists measure the genetic difference between distinct species: he has a way of making the drollest details feel like a revelation. Even if one already believes in the survival of the fittest, there is something thrilling about learning that the hoof of a horse is homologous to the fingernail of the human middle finger, or that some dinosaurs had a second brain of ganglion cells in their pelvis, which helped compensate for the tiny brain in their head. As Darwin famously noted, There is grandeur in this view of life. What Dawkins demonstrates is that this view of life isn't just grand: it's also undeniably true. Color illus. (Sept. 29)Jonah Lehrer is the author of How We Decide and Proust Was a Neuroscientist.
Smart man, but has the common sense of a brick for delivering counter arguments. Oh and that ganglion of cells, is a dated theory for dinosaurs. Their brains were plenty powerful enough to control their massive bodies.
If his presentation was more similar to "look at how cool this is, and this makes sense because of x reasons" like Sagan, he'd might get less shaft. If he focused a bit more on teaching and less on bashing religion every chance he got, he'd be taken more seriously with his educational works.
The goal of education is to entice exploration, mimicry, synthesis, and understanding. Polemicism just makes people put books down or ignore his historiography. I personally just brush off his historiography in terms of religion. There are ways to entice emotions without being antagonistic in every piece.
Sure, I find it interesting, but I find MtG interesting too. I feel the subject is more or less an old outdated one that should be broken into history and math. Sure, it gave us the science we have today, and I'm not debating that it was once a VERY important subject, but that old important subject has changed into science. What we have left is the study of older philosophy, which should become "history" or "literature" and the study of logic, which IS math.
You might as well say math IS philosophy. Neither discipline has any sort of intrinsic priority over the other.
Now, with a good BS or BA in philosophy you can go on to law school, since it prepares you for making well thought out arguments logical arguments. Also, higher level logic more or less is the study of math, while the higher level study of older philosophies is more or less history, or the study of literature. I guess we still have the need for ethics, but isn't that just law?
Ethics:law::mathematics:engineering. Closely related, but not identical.
Not unless some form of observation/empiricism is added to the process. As long as you're keeping entirely to formal logic without empirical data, you have discovered no truths at all.
"If A then B is a True statement" does not say anything. Observe A. Then you'll have some form of truth at your disposal. Until you do, though, you know nothing.
This is simply not the case. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
You might as well say math IS philosophy. Neither discipline has any sort of intrinsic priority over the other.
Well, then why make a distinction? Combine the disciplines. (and I know some philosophy majors that would say philosophy IS literature, not math at all)
Smart man, but has the common sense of a brick for delivering counter arguments.
The review is off, since he doesn't compare creationists to Holocaust deniers in the book. I'll concede that maybe he does it once early on in the book that I don't remember about, since the fact that denying evolution is as ridiculous in face of the evidence as denying the Holocaust is not at all controversial to me.
He actually says multiple times in the book that it's like a prof of Latin having to waste his time with students who believe the Romans never existed and that all European languages emerged out of the blue without common descent.
Without metaphysics, we'd all still be worshipping the sun.
That would be an improvement over metaphysics. At least the sun exists. And it is demonstrably, causally responsible for the existence of all life on Earth.
Without a theory of mind, psychology could never have progressed beyond the simplistic direct cause/effect models. Without an understanding of epistemology, the kind of clarity technical language demands might well be impossible. Without metaphysics, we'd all still be worshipping the sun. There will be totally new problems in the future that need a frame of reference, a model for understanding, and that is what philosophy can provide.
You missed the part of my statement where I said that philosophy WAS useful, at one point.
And do you know what subjects are BETTER at resolving problems in theoretical math & science? Theoretical math & science.
A simple distinction is that philosophy is more analytical compared to science, and science is more synthetical compared to philosophy. Liken it to the relationship between the logic and observation aspects of reason.
As such, I see them as different dimensions of a united process, which is learning and exploration. Learning involves not only discovering data, but also organizing and absorbing data, making relationships between them, and checking these methods.
That said, calling them two parts of a united process can be misleading because science and philosophy don't do the same things. Both deal with creating and refining explanations, but it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that a philosophical explanation has the same goals and strictures that a scientific explanation would have.
In simple terms, philosophy is less about finding things out and more about understanding what we do know. In that regard, there are profound differences.
Quote from Mr. Stuff »
I think we're arguing about different versions of philosophy here. Philosophy to answer the question "Where did the universe and everything come from?" and "Why am I alive?" and etc is useless, and is better left to science. Philosophy to answer the question "How should I live my life?", the whole question of politics, and etc is still pretty valid. Science helps philosophy out, providing basic facts to work with.
I would almost call "Buddhism" a philosophy of life rather than a religion (almost). I do call Humanism a philosophy, and it is how I choose to live my life. The thing is, where possible, philosophy should be based on logic and facts, and science provides those facts. The science of psychology and neurobiology plays an important role in this. By understanding what governs our actions and emotions, we can better learn to control those actions and emotions.
I don't agree that those philosophies you mentioned are useless. As I mentioned before, the question "why am I alive?" is a different question if you ask from a scientist's point of view (like "what processes led to my life?") and a philosopher's point of view (like "is there an end purpose to my life? what is the significance of my life in terms of value?"). You can't ask one discipline to take over the other's job in the same way you can't use chemistry to translate a text.
I wouldn't say facts/evidence/etc. don't interact with philosophy at all but it's not "power by facts," if you will, in the way that a scientific discipline is. This is what I meant about it being more to the analytical than synthetical side. Philosophy also helps science out, as a structuring agent and providing different scopes by which to assess facts.
Buddhist philosophy pervades more philosophical spheres than do those of most other religions, but it's also a good example of how there is a difference between a religion and a philosophy contained in a tradition. Buddhism is a psychological religion, and is among a relative few, and so it often stands out compared to other religions. It's still a religion - the philosophy is deeply connected to the personal and social dimension, which includes not only a morality and a worldview but a shared psyche, with connected attitudes and experiences.
I think this is what I was trying to communicate earlier when we were talking about this topic.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Is there an inherent difference between Science and Philosophy? In a sense, are there certain assumptions that we make in Philosophy that would not easily be taken as a given in Science, and vice versa? Is Science an extension of Philosophy? How would you draw the thin line between Science and Philosophy, especially when you say, try to compare a Physicist with a PhD thesis and an Analytical Philosopher whose area of focus in Philosophy is Physics?
Maybe I don't really understand the question.
If I had to choose one of them to keep around, as they are now, I'd take science. Philosophy is nifty and all, but science is actually useful in a much more real sense.
On the difference between them? Science is more pragmatic and deals more with reality than in possibility (of course, there are things like experimental physics and some cosmological stuff that we struggle to get corroborating data on, but this is not that big a deal to me)
Eh, maybe I'm just not liking it because of how many religious arguments use philosophy as a base and makes claims that the possibility means its probable or even actual.
The philosopher will ask "why"
The scientist will find out "why"
Theology is a form of philosophy just like transhumanism is. Looking at the tango between the two extremes; tension from the polar philosophies and a changing reality are the catalysts for new thought and innovation.
Yes and no. Science is born out of philosophy, but it has become an entire institution unto itself. Science is basically an idiot proof guide to exploration by cutting out trivial details for it's end goal of physical discovery. Science is limited to what is physically measurable, thus winnowing out more corruptible data to its telos.
In contrast, philosophy does not discard all unmeasurable factors but rather embraces them. Philosophy's measuring instruments are entirely subjective and more emotion's based. Philosophy is one of those "things" you just "do" naturally as a verb from time to time. Philosophy tries to analyze the spectrum of thought itself, but its practical application is equally vast and shallow. This vastness and shallowness is inherently why philosophy is discarded as useless and rebranded as something else.
Science is a maturing subdivision of philosophy with a lot of physical benefits and detriments. Science today is viewed by society as some ambrosia for humanity, for myself I merely see it as a tool ripe for use or misuse like any other human fruit.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Philosophy is useless.
Sure, I find it interesting, but I find MtG interesting too. I feel the subject is more or less an old outdated one that should be broken into history and math. Sure, it gave us the science we have today, and I'm not debating that it was once a VERY important subject, but that old important subject has changed into science. What we have left is the study of older philosophy, which should become "history" or "literature" and the study of logic, which IS math.
Now, with a good BS or BA in philosophy you can go on to law school, since it prepares you for making well thought out arguments logical arguments. Also, higher level logic more or less is the study of math, while the higher level study of older philosophies is more or less history, or the study of literature. I guess we still have the need for ethics, but isn't that just law?
I mean, maybe I'm stupid, and someone can tell me why other subjects could also be broken into other subjects, but I just feel like philosophy has more or less run its course, and should be broken up.
The scientific method is cute, but what about it's brother or father found in the school of logic?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Bollocks.
Science is philosophy done according to the scientific method. "Proper philosophy" can use other methods as well. You may agree with Taylor and think that it doesn't provide a useful result, but you can't say its done improperly.
Take the Socratic method: It's a legitimate methodology of performing a philosophical analysis. Its not going to get you concrete answers, but thats not always the end goal of philosophy.
Name one.
The fact it doesn't provide a useful result is why it is done improperly.
Not unless some form of observation/empiricism is added to the process. As long as you're keeping entirely to formal logic without empirical data, you have discovered no truths at all.
"If A then B is a True statement" does not say anything. Observe A. Then you'll have some form of truth at your disposal. Until you do, though, you know nothing.
An answer that isn't concrete isn't an answer to anything.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
That is quite honestly one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
The point of philosophy is not only to determine objective facts, if it were then you would be correct.
It certainly is an answer. I don't know why you insist on every answer also being able to have a practical application in order for it to be "proper philosophy".
But, is it useful?
Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
Truths are objective facts. Something that isn't either objective or a fact isn't true.
Knowledge is objective facts. If something isn't an objective fact, then you don't *know* it. The set of knowledge is a subset of the set of truths. It is the set of truths that are known.
Conduct and being (morality/ethics) *should* be based on truth and knowledge. Hence, philosophy, properly done, is science.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
See now... you bolded it, so I know you saw it, but you for some reason truncated an important part of that sentence in your analysis... namely the "and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" portion. The fact that those are listed separate from the "truth" portion indicates that they are not, in point of fact, the same thing.
You can't just cut out and ignore the parts you don't like. It's stupid, and intellectually dishonest.
Actually... yes. answers that are not concrete can be quite usefull in many situations. Evolution i8s by no means a "concrete answer" to the question "how did life start" since its not empirically testable (yet?). It is certainly a usefull answer though, in that it helps us model the world around us, and determine things.
Likewise with the philosophical question "what is the purpose of life?" It may not seem usefull to you, or me right now, but tell that to the person who was just convinced not to off themselves because someone explained how they may have a purpose for being here after all... It is usefull in that circumstance...
And yes, evolution is empirically testable. If it could not be tested, then it would not be a part of science.
I also think the definitions of a "concrete answer" are subjective and vague.
Umm... this seems really awkward to read. So, philosophy is used when emotions run high?
bLatch, would you prefer us to go with "Philosophy is pointless"?
Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, not evolution. Evolution is, as kurCE described, how life has changed, and how it is changing
I would almost call "Buddhism" a philosophy of life rather than a religion (almost). I do call Humanism a philosophy, and it is how I choose to live my life. The thing is, where possible, philosophy should be based on logic and facts, and science provides those facts. The science of psychology and neurobiology plays an important role in this. By understanding what governs our actions and emotions, we can better learn to control those actions and emotions.
I recommend everybody read the introduction to philosophy that is stickied in this very forum.
Not only is evolution empirically testable, it has already been empirically tested. Multiple times. Pick up Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, it's pretty awesome... even if you don't like Dawkins, it's worth it just for the awesome picture of the tattoo on the back of that purple haired biologist chick. (Oh yeah, and the science and stuff. It's cool.)
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787
Smart man, but has the common sense of a brick for delivering counter arguments. Oh and that ganglion of cells, is a dated theory for dinosaurs. Their brains were plenty powerful enough to control their massive bodies.
If his presentation was more similar to "look at how cool this is, and this makes sense because of x reasons" like Sagan, he'd might get less shaft. If he focused a bit more on teaching and less on bashing religion every chance he got, he'd be taken more seriously with his educational works.
The goal of education is to entice exploration, mimicry, synthesis, and understanding. Polemicism just makes people put books down or ignore his historiography. I personally just brush off his historiography in terms of religion. There are ways to entice emotions without being antagonistic in every piece.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You might as well say math IS philosophy. Neither discipline has any sort of intrinsic priority over the other.
Ethics:law::mathematics:engineering. Closely related, but not identical.
This is simply not the case. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Not all facts are useful, though; you're conflating truth with usefulness. Again.
Circular.
Non sequitur, until you can justify your strong empiricism.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The review is off, since he doesn't compare creationists to Holocaust deniers in the book. I'll concede that maybe he does it once early on in the book that I don't remember about, since the fact that denying evolution is as ridiculous in face of the evidence as denying the Holocaust is not at all controversial to me.
He actually says multiple times in the book that it's like a prof of Latin having to waste his time with students who believe the Romans never existed and that all European languages emerged out of the blue without common descent.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
That would be an improvement over metaphysics. At least the sun exists. And it is demonstrably, causally responsible for the existence of all life on Earth.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
And do you know what subjects are BETTER at resolving problems in theoretical math & science? Theoretical math & science.
As such, I see them as different dimensions of a united process, which is learning and exploration. Learning involves not only discovering data, but also organizing and absorbing data, making relationships between them, and checking these methods.
That said, calling them two parts of a united process can be misleading because science and philosophy don't do the same things. Both deal with creating and refining explanations, but it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that a philosophical explanation has the same goals and strictures that a scientific explanation would have.
In simple terms, philosophy is less about finding things out and more about understanding what we do know. In that regard, there are profound differences.
I don't agree that those philosophies you mentioned are useless. As I mentioned before, the question "why am I alive?" is a different question if you ask from a scientist's point of view (like "what processes led to my life?") and a philosopher's point of view (like "is there an end purpose to my life? what is the significance of my life in terms of value?"). You can't ask one discipline to take over the other's job in the same way you can't use chemistry to translate a text.
I wouldn't say facts/evidence/etc. don't interact with philosophy at all but it's not "power by facts," if you will, in the way that a scientific discipline is. This is what I meant about it being more to the analytical than synthetical side. Philosophy also helps science out, as a structuring agent and providing different scopes by which to assess facts.
Buddhist philosophy pervades more philosophical spheres than do those of most other religions, but it's also a good example of how there is a difference between a religion and a philosophy contained in a tradition. Buddhism is a psychological religion, and is among a relative few, and so it often stands out compared to other religions. It's still a religion - the philosophy is deeply connected to the personal and social dimension, which includes not only a morality and a worldview but a shared psyche, with connected attitudes and experiences.
I think this is what I was trying to communicate earlier when we were talking about this topic.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20