2
   

The job of Philosophy

 
 
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2020 09:24 am
The job of Philosophy with one UNIQUE exception, is not to clarify anything at all as clarifying is the job of Science...for Philosophy the ONE JOB is to clarify just how unclear all things are when most naively thought they got them right already.
And that is a really tough job to choose, and one marriage no one will appreciate you for!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Barack_Obama_drops_the_mic.gif
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,294 • Replies: 50
No top replies

 
Jewels Vern
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2020 04:27 pm
And what does Obozo have to do with this?
Albuquerque
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2020 08:52 pm
@Jewels Vern,
It wasn't about "Obozo" just a heavy-weight mic drop which fits like a glove.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2020 09:11 pm
@Albuquerque,
Quote:
for Philosophy the ONE JOB is to clarify just how unclear all things are when most naively thought they got them right already.


This sums up my thoughts about philosophy perfectly. I am not sure I agree with your characterization of science.
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 03:18 am
@maxdancona,
Well, Science in order to keep being Science, must be, should be, inherently pragmatic, keep to experiments and observations. That said, Scientists and their equations jiggle with words as much as everyone else does. The ONE JOB of Philosophy as far as I see it is to question the concepts, the coinage, l'air du temps, and deconstruct the concepts, the common sense, the establishment and push questions upon given explanations as "civilization" marches on.
Please note that I am not for one second saying that Science observations and their equations do not work, they do clearly, but when it comes to conceptually explaining they are bound exactly to the same linguistic operating system everyone else is. Often a conceptual operating system that took very little revision when it come to Logic.
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 03:45 am
@maxdancona,
Recently, and I posted it, I've listen to a pseudo debate between Lex and Eric Weinstein and I was laughing my way through it like a mad man. The degree of confusion and sheer naivety going on in diagnosing the social schizophrenic behaviour in the world and their root causes was mind boggling.
In all candour we all, even the best of us, have blind spots when it comes to coherent thinking. This 2 as far as I know are not even scientists but they relate...the point is I've seen this level of awkward confusion one to many times now and it gives me the shivers.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 07:35 am
@Albuquerque,
Quote:
Well, Science in order to keep being Science, must be, should be, inherently pragmatic, keep to experiments and observations. That said, Scientists and their equations jiggle with words as much as everyone else does.


I agree with the first statement.

I disagree with the second statement. The human beings that happen to be scientists "jiggle with words". But that isn't science.

Science is based on experiments and observations. When philosophy attempts to discredit the experimental results, philosophy is wrong. This has been happening since Galileo had to defend science against the philosophers of the inquisition.


Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 09:50 am
@maxdancona,
Unless you can explain me what is the secret language scientists use and their subtract, the concepts and their meaning, I still believe it is English for the most part!

PS -
1 - You clearly don't understand what Philosophy is, don't worry most don't either.
2 - 99% of peoples woke up time is spent doing Philosophy, and no I am not kidding. Obviously I am not referring to the book keepers at the Cathedra of Philosophy. Those rarely innovate or risk anything. And the example you gave is prove of that.
3 - Science is a method which stands on Reason and starts from Axioms, that make sense within their cultural time frame and our embodied cognitive needs as a species.
4 - I have the utmost respect for Science and its work, I have been following it all my life, but I am well aware of its limits and flaws. Yes, I use the order flaws!
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 10:02 am
@Albuquerque,
Scientists in China or Russia or Germany might take exception at that statement.

At the core of science is mathematics. When scientists use a human language, the terms need to be mathematically defined so they fit with the experimental data.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 10:07 am
@maxdancona,
No. Mathematics is based on Language and concepts. This is why Mathematics is based on axioms, just like everything else. And there are a but load of stuff lost in translation even if I agree with the banal observation that Human beings belonging to the same species have a more or less Universal language. Concepts though have evolved overtime and while science scopes what works and what doesn't for us it has very little to say when it comes to its axiomatic roots.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 10:18 am
@Albuquerque,
You are incorrect, and what you are expressing is a basic problem that prevents many Philosophy enthusiasts from understanding or accepting science.

Human language is imprecise. A sentence can easily be misunderstood or interpreted in several different ways. Take this question; A man is 82kg on the Earth, how many Kg will he be on the moon? In order to answer this question correctly, you need to understand what a Kilogram is...
.
Science is based on experiment and observation. In order to understand a term in science, you have to understand how it is measured experimentally. Science terms are well-defined and measurable.

Human language is imprecise. Science is precise. That is the basic problem.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 10:22 am
@maxdancona,
What can I say, there isn't much to comment on your positivist naive approach to deep Science and its frontiers. I would advise you a career in making washing machines and other practical stuff. You are clearly unfamiliar with problems on the foundations of Mathematics and Physics.
Have a nice day Max and watch your azz with Covid! We are done here! Wink
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 10:29 am
@Albuquerque,
What you are calling a "positivist naive approach" to science is curing disease, extending the human life, and sending robots to Mars.

I have no problem defending science against philosophers.


Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 10:32 am
@maxdancona,
You very much remind me of Lawrence Krauss without wanting to offend much L. Krauss...and with that I am out to greener pastures! Later Max!
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 10:50 am
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 11:07 am
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 11:12 am
@Albuquerque,
Interesting video (I used to call you Fil.... do I call you Al now?)

I disagree with him on his definition of the scientific method... particularly his claim that what Einstein did was not the scientific method.

Einsteins theories were brilliant... but were basically the same scientific process. He developed a hypothesis. He tested that hypothesis (in this case mathematically with existing data). Then he went back to tweak his hypothesis or to develop new ones. All of Einstein's theories had to be tested by experiment before they were accepted, just like any other scientific experiment.

I have read Kuhn. He is interesting, and I partially agree with him. But as The great Physicist Richard Feynman said... "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".

Science is based on experiment and observation. There is nothing in this video that contradicts the points I am making.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 11:20 am
@maxdancona,
Agreed ,he won his Nobel prize only after his published papers were verified by experiment. ALSO, he let others prove general relativity ,(several times), I suppose, were he alive at the time of discovery of gravity waves, he may have earned another Nobel.

Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 11:47 am
@maxdancona,
I forgot my old password when I changed my PC and the forum was unable to let me recover my old account to my email. Sadly I had to create a new one.
You can call me Filipe as usuall as that is my actual real name.
(no not Felipe but Filipe)
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2020 11:49 am
@farmerman,
Thankfully Penrose got it this year thanks to the work of the other 2 Laureates and a great deal of other people. Penrose work on the 60's and 70's had very little to do with Science tho.
I agree the Nobel should be given after evidence is presented and verified by its peers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The job of Philosophy
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/29/2020 at 01:22:05