What fools these mortals be.

I more or less agree with you here (and disagree with Joshs' position) if only because Western philosophy, by most accounts, began in the 6th c. BCE with Pre-Socratic proto-scientists who framed – grounded in reasoned-speculative observations of nature – the predominantly Platonic-Aristotlean tradition which followed. I read this empirical, or anti-supernaturalist, framing as happening again two millennia later in the 17th c. CE with the Cartesian-Newtonian disambiguation of natural philosophy from metaphysics-theology. Disputes nevertheless persists. — 180 Proof

As I noted previously, my understanding of the history of ideas is not as good as yours.

Some (A) prioritize the latter over (or at the expense of) the former; some (B) prioritize the former over (or at the expense of) the latter; and some (C) do not prioritize either treating them as "non-overlapping magisteria". — 180 Proof

As I've said before, I love Stephen J Gould, but non-overlapping magisteria is a bunch of bologna. I go for D - I don't prioritize either and don't treat them as NOMA. Use what works.

I would say that physics was much closer to the cutting edge of philosophy in the 17th century than it is now. Today’s philosophy is entangled with the social , and in particular , the psychological sciences, and more distantly related to physics. — Joshs

I tend to make a pretty strict division between philosophy and science. If it depends on empirical epistemological methods, i.e. facts, it's science. If it doesn't, it's philosophy, or something else I guess. I think the distinction between metaphysics and physics is an important one that is often misunderstood.

I share that thought. I think it includes wages and other material conditions, but also decision making participation. That's basically my whole argument. — Mikie

My father spent the last 15 years of his 45 year career at a large chemical manufacturing company working on ways to get labor and management to work together. He always said the workers thought it was great and management did whatever they could to throw monkey wrenches in the machinery. He always saw it not as a way to help the workers, but rather as a way to improve the productivity of the whole enterprise. He thought that would help both workers and the company.

The argument could be made, but I dont see a lot of evidence for it. Newton was the first scientist to express Cartesian ideas, but he came along 100 years after Descartes. One can find strong consonances between the groundbreaking work of Kant and scientific thought, but none of this appeared till many decades after Kant. — Joshs

I don't really have the knowledge to address this much more deeply. I do know that Descartes died in 1650 and Newton was born in 1642, so there was not 100 years between them. I've also read that Kant was heavily influenced by Newton.

I'll go out on a limb here, given my lack of detailed knowledge - It strikes me that philosophy was much more entangled with science back in the 17th century. It is less so now.

workers aren't being paid a decent wage, in reality. And the reason they're not is partly determined by these OP questions — Mikie

I gave criteria for determining the answers to the OP questions. You seem to think my answers aren't responsive to your questions. I don't see why.

But let's assume they are being paid a decent wage. They get enough to eat and live and have healthcare. Is that it? They deserve only that? What if they're the ones doing the lion's share of the work? Don't they deserve more than simply a "decent living wage"? — Mikie

I think workers deserve a decent life for themselves and their families. We can have a discussion as to what is required for a decent life.

If our sciences have evolved, it’s because our philosophies have evolved. — Joshs

I don't see that. I think the argument could be made it's the other way around, i.e. changes in scientific knowledge lead to change in philosophies. I'm not sure where I come down on that.

So the market *should* decide? — Mikie

I don't care how much profit companies make. how much executives are paid, or how it is determined as long as workers are paid a decent living wage.

But do markets really decide what the CEO or the average worker makes or what prices are? — Mikie

Again, the question was "what should," not "what is."

we can speculate in specifics as well. — Mikie

I don't have the information I need to do that. I'm perfectly happy to let the amount of profit be determined by the market as long as workers are paid a decent living wage.

"Me" is a joke answer, I assume. — Mikie

Sure, a joke, but also an acknowledgement that what we decide here doesn't affect how it's really done.

I'm contrasting that with equity. — Benkei

Yes. I misunderstood.

I believe we need to be able to come up with completely new concepts that could have never been fathomed before, — obscurelaunting

I don't think we, or at least I, need new philosophical concepts to describe the reality I see all around me. I have the language I need to talk about it and understand it. Philosophy has more to do with how we interact with the world than it does with the details of the world itself. The human ways of interacting with reality haven't really changed that much in the last 3,000 years. Technology has changed, but not human nature.

How much of the profits does he get?

That’s the question. There is an answer in real life, which is decided by real people. The answer to this also directly affects the “decent life” part. — Mikie

Your question was what should it be, not what is it. You're right, what a reasonable incentive and decent life constitute is open to question. Decent life means pays for healthy food, secure housing, good education, health care, transportation, child care, and two six-packs of Bud Lite a week. Incentive is what's left over.

You could do that with a loan too, which will have a pre-defined interest and end date — Benkei

The loans I have taken out have pre-defined interest and end dates. How are things different there?

(3) Who decides (1) and (2)? — Mikie

Forgot to answer this. Me.

The guy who puts up the money gets:

[The money he put up] + [Risk of loss] + [Reasonable incentive to invest]

The other 99 get a salary or wage and benefits that allow living a decent life.

do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel

In theory and intent, I agree. Alas, sometimes my temper gets away with me. I've gotten better over my years here. I give the forum credit for that.

A useful post. Thanks.

TPF now has a new area called "Help," where you can find posts proving guidance and tips on how to use the site. There's a link to it at the top of every page, in the header bar. — Jamal

When I read the post about mathjax, I was thinking it should be pinned to the top of the page. This is a good way of handling it.

the obvious fact — Wayfarer

Ahem...

I think (for what it's worth, probably not much) that there are more and less credible interpretations. I rather like Chris Fuchs QBism, — Wayfarer

Seems like the text you quoted is consistent with my position. One part in particular - "Many Worlds Interpretation isn’t useful because it doesn’t constrain our theories of physics," is similar to what I wrote -

there is no way to decide on a correct interpretation of QM empirically — T Clark

Although I was speaking of all interpretations, not just the many worlds.

I hadn't head of QBism. I looked it up. Thanks for the new information.

Agreed. A banning is never nice and no one likes to be ostracized. It is sad for the person to whom it happened Being gleeful about a decision which is needed, but sad is not very nice. He is not in the position to defend himself as well. — Tobias

Oh, shut up. — frank

He explained.

You don’t know what “projecting” means. Look it up. It doesnt just mean identifying traits in others that you yourself possess, its attributing traits to others based on your own possession of them. Attributing traits based on the other person actually having those traits is just being accurate and rational. — DingoJones

Really? Is that what this has come to? Quibbling about word meanings. Let's get back to the vituperation.

Anyone got a pair of dunce caps for these chuckleheads? — DingoJones

Ah, yes. That's more like it.

Have you noticed that those most eager to jump on the ‘pummel Batricks’ bandwagon share some of his uncivil tendencies? — Joshs

My goodness, I think you might be right.

So if we want to read people's minds one day, we need a way to listen qualitatively to their music -- the thoughts themselves in whatever materiality they take, be it brainwaves or something else. Not just measure quantitatively the level of effort spent in producing thoughts. — Olivier5

That makes sense.

It reflects badly on those who participate.
— T Clark
:roll: :rofl: :party: :party: :party: — Banno

Thank you very much for your support!

The only reason he lasted as long as he did was because of idiots like you who thought they found a sparring part er rather than a troll with a personality disorder. — DingoJones

[whisper]Hey @Joshs, I don't think DJ likes you.[/whisper]

I can't believe you said that about Tclark! :fire: — frank

I know!! It's terrible!!

You’re just lucky they don’t ban for self-righteous
twat-ness. — DingoJones

Hey @Jamal!! Hey @Baden!! DingoJones is being mean to me.

I would tend to disagree. — Olivier5

You may well be right.

Normally I consider the celebration of a ban unseemly... — Jamal

And it is. It reflects badly on those who participate.

As an old math person my suspicion is that "superposition" and "collapse of wave function" is nothing more than experimenting to discover which of multiple solutions of the partial differential equations describing phenomena actually apply in a particular instance. Multi worlds I consider science fantasy. — jgill

If, as is my understanding, there is no way to decide on a correct interpretation of QM empirically, it becomes not fantasy, but metaphysics. Or maybe just baloney.

I was subjected to Dick and Jane's Weltanschauung which bore scant resemblance to my reality. — BC

You see where little Sally is really pointing when she says "see dick." I think Moms for Liberty should get it banned from school libraries.

I was thinking of something more radical, like some science-induced telepathy, which would then allow us to feel what it is to be a bat. — Olivier5

It is a fairly common science fiction storyline. If such a technology were ever to be developed, I imagine it would start very simply with something like what has been studied with the MRI.

On the other hand, I think the potential for a mind reading device is pretty radical all by itself.

You want to be careful, many of those studies have been called into question. See Do you believe in God, or is that a Software Glitch? — Wayfarer

Agreed. I did not intend to imply that it was an established fact.

Is that the only way to do philosophy? Is it the right way? Are there alternatives? — Banno

Of course not. Of course not. Of course.

I would say my characterization applies to the edifice of philosophy as a whole, especially as practiced here on the forum.

I really like the word "edifice" especially when used in this context.

Everything you've written here could be said of any philosophy.

Maybe one day the state of our science will allow us to read the minds of bats, for instance. — Olivier5

I have heard of experiments using MRIs to correlate specific brain patterns with specific words. The claim is that this may someday allow reading minds. Here's a link to a 60 Minutes program discussing this. I have not watched this since it was originally on the air.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-rewind-mind-reading-2020-09-04/

Good hyper short story. — javi2541997

Thank you.