The job of Philosophy

Funny video ahead, enjoy!

I'd say the job of Philosophy is to give the brain something to do...and nothing else. Let's face it, Philosophy equates to thinking and thinking is the most subjective objective thing that exists to a conscious human being. Philosophy is the outcome of our failure to properly understand that what's subjective is objective and what's objective is subjective. It really is the last thing our brains can understand.

Can you clarify that statement.

It basically comes down to subjectivity and objectivity being the same thing. Philosophy is trying to treat subjectivity and objectivity as competing ideals when in fact they are the exact same thing to a conscious human being. Everyone knows what they know by being both subjective and objective and using each ways of thought to accomplish a goal; the goal to survive in an obvious objective 'ouch that hurts if I do the wrong thing' reality. Where physically objectivity rules and mentally subjectivity rules and in reality both rules apply equally. Philosophy is just like politics, where one side needs to dominate the other side. Philosophy is nothing but the subjective side of us thinking it's more important than the objective side of us, which is what causes people to do dumb things. Like driving drunk or doing meth or cheating on our spouses or burning down buildings in protest or blindly having faith in our leaders. In the end we are imprisoned by both objectivism and subjectivism so much that we need an escape, hence Philosophy. The ultimate "get out of jail free" card that anyone can use to deny what's really going on. That our thirst for knowledge is a double-edged sword that'll eventually cut us.

I will go Cartesian for a nano second and tell you that the only objective fact we can speak of is precisely our subjective experience. Given that, some people are more articulate than others.
My distinction between what is objective and subjective doesn't go further than that. In the end of the day as rational and methodical I can be all I am sure off is of my own experience as it unfolds itself. I won't go fully with the "Cogito ergum sum" from Descartes because I am not even sure about what an "I" entails. I grant on the other hand that experiencing, being aware, conscious, is a unified process banally attributed to the obscure coinage people usually call "mind".

As for the limits of Science well lets put it in pragmatic terms, Science deals with what works within our perceptual domain. As far as I am concerned that is good enough. Just don't expect Science to give any insight upon ultimate boundary questions. Most scientists are good at making cars and washing machines, very few are good at theoretical Physics and Ontological issues when one pushes the limits of language. Mathematical models mean little if there is no correspondence between those models and proper English words, and words of course are dependent on subjective concepts which are socially useful evolved from our own embodied cognition as a species, not ultimately true.
I am yet to objectively understand what is Matter, Energy and Force. Any honest top grade scientist will confess as much.

The term "objectively understand" is ridiculous. Understanding is something that happens inside your mind. The is no possible objectivity in your understanding, or my understanding or anyone else's understanding.

A scientific theory has to be well-defined and tested by experiment or observation. Anything else is not necessary, and is not science.

...oh you didn't got the irony did you? Your pals are the snake oil sellers not my pals...Thank you for making my point!

You are setting up this magical ideal called "objective understanding". Correct me if I am wrong, but the word "objective" to me means that if two people (in two different cultures) both understand correctly, they will reach the same understanding. If that isn't correct... then tell me how to distinguish between an "objective" understanding any other type of understanding.

Science is objective because it is testable. If someone claims that the Universe is billions of years old, they need to provide observations. And they to have a null hypothesis "what would we expect to see if the Universe weren't billions of years old". Anyone can make the observations... and run the experiment, and get the same results.

You are wanting to find some "objective understanding" that isn't testable. There is no way for you to know if your understanding is more correct that a contradictory understanding. I think you are asserting that there is some truth and that some understanding are truthy and some understandings are not truthy.

But calling something "objective understanding" that isn't testable is meaningless. The things you assert are true are true only because you assert them. And people who disagree with you are wrong, not because there is an experiment or data, but just because you say they are.

That is the problem with philosophy.

Well, lets see, where to start? Oh yes the age of the Universe lets throw in some clear thinking on that shall we? Tell me beyond the background radiation that we have empirical access to trough observation when the Universe was an Infinitely dense hot spot how would you measure time back then, when we know what gravity and black wholes can do with time? You see the job of philosophers is to call bullshit when they see it and that is your actual problem isn't it? For all that I know the age of the Universe can go to Infinity and that within the classical frame entailing one and just one Big Bang!

The way science works (do I really have to explain the scientific method to you)..

1. Someone develops a hypothesis (there are many ways to do this including philosophy).

2. They develop a test (and null hypothesis). This defines the observations and experimental results that will confirm or refute the hypothesis.

3. When enough data conforms it, the theory is scientifically accepted as the "correct" theory. Everyone understands that a new theory may come along, but the fact that the current theory fits all of the current data and observations means something.

4. As soon as someone comes up with new data that contradicts the current theory, they work to develop a new theory.

Philosophers are welcome to yell "bullshit" at science. If their complaints are testable... then this helps science and is part of their process.

If philosophical complaints can't be tested or measured (and are giving perfect examples of this) then all this philosophical whining is scientifically meaningless. In science, the only meaning that is important is what can be shown through experiment and observation. That is what makes it objective.

Holy cow did you made a u-turn there Max. Ty for enlighten me on the scientific method and dodging completely my previous post. Very informative!

What do you think I am dodging.

You are making the point that there are questions that science can't answer. I agree with you on that point. Science can't ever tell us anything about human rights, or measure the beauty of Elle MacPherson. Science can tell us the approximate age of the Universe... and it can do it in a way that observable and testable. Science will never be able to tell us the meaning of the start of the Universe, and as of right now science can't say anything about what was before the Universe (and probably never will).

I can't dispute a point you are making if I agree with you.

Science can give us objective models of how the Universe works. They are objective because they are testable and repeatable. Science doesn't have to be useful... but it turns out that if you like airplanes, and computer electronics, and medical advances, science is incredibly useful.

Where we disagree is the idea that there is some magical "objective understanding" that comes outside of what we can test. Different human beings have different understandings based on culture, and personality and a bunch of other things. There is no way to point to anything objective when it comes to understanding (outside of what can be defined and tested).

We have no evidence that understanding happens anywhere outside of an individual human brain (or perhaps closely related animals... but that is debatable). And we have lots of evidence that understanding is far from objective... since individual people have remarkably different understandings.

I don't do nor believe in magic thinking nor anything magic, quite the opposite. I am just not ignorant about my ignorance which is more then you can say.

I have no problem saying it..... I am not ignorant about your ignorance either.

I am joking of course... but notice the problem you have with imprecise language.

I don't know what your point is Filipe. You seem to have lost your point. You are insulting scientists, but you aren't really putting forward any clear arguments.

These are my points, and this is my argument. On some points you and I agree. I assert the following.

1. Understanding is a human trait (perhaps it exists in closely related animals... but it doesn't exist outside of the mind). Each human's understanding is subjective and personal. There is no "objective understanding".

2. Science provides a specific process that is testable and repeatable. In science, the only questions that "matter" are questions that can be answered objectively by experiment and observation. The questions that can't be answered scientifically are outside the realm of science.

3. There are lots of questions that can't be answered by science. These are important questions like what constitutes human rights? or "when is killing justified? or should marriage be based on love or economic need? All of these are important questions, and none of them can be answered by science.

4. Science has nothing to do with "meaning". Rocks orbit suns, comets fly around in elliptical orbits. Volcanoes erupt on uninhabitable moons. None of this has any "meaning" outside of the human mind (or something similar). The universe just goes.

New species appear. Species evolve. Species go extinct. Different species of life come and go (maybe throughout the universe).

The human race thinks that human life is somehow important. Nothing else in the Universe has any reason to care about the human race, or the value of human life or human anything.

Humans evolved with brains to look for patterns... and your brain's pleasure centers fire when you find a pattern. We did this because human evolution favored this. In our environment, we are social creatures who act based on these patterns. We fool ourselves to think that this "understanding" is important.

But this last point (#4) is philosophy. It has nothing to do with science. And that is my point.

Football game: math vs physics
Philosophy could be the referee.

Physics and math are happily married. They are on the same side.

Philosophy is the third wheel (many Physicists consider Philosophy to be a waste of time). What you are suggesting is a husband and wife having sex with a jilted ex-lover as a "referee".