Susan Haack (a prominent philosopher of science) suggests strongly that there is no scientific method as such. I'm paraphrasing, but for her there are just approaches used to test if something is likely and can be used by law, cooking and science.

There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists. Susan Haack — Tom Storm

Haack says there are a set of "inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers." You know... methods. Methods of science. The scientific method. I'm not trying to be cute. She's being lazy with her argument.

I've noticed that you often come back to this point. I wonder if this is slightly evasive. Surely a scientific approach to a problem is more correct if the matter is a hospital research team trying to treat or cure cancer? — Tom Storm

Yes, I think we can all agree, at least all of us here, that using a scientific approach in researching cancer will be more effective, useful, than prayer.

We seem to go out of our way to avoid using terms like right or wrong, correct and incorrect, perhaps in an attempt to sidestep debate. — Tom Storm

I strongly disagree that acknowledging that choosing a particular procedure is useful as opposed to correct is an attempt to avoid debate. It certainly isn't in my case. The selection is made on the basis of human value, usefulness, effectiveness. It's an important distinction.

Thought experiment.. Do you think that "the correct way to study cancer is using science," is true in the same sense that "the capital of France is Paris," is?

I like the way you've laid this out. Let me see if I can respond clearly. Here are the steps you lay out:

• Observe phenomena
• Identify regularities
• Generate hypotheses
• Test hypotheses

The process you've described is the scientific method, which is philosophy, i.e. epistemology, a valid process for obtaining knowledge. You haven't provided any information on the content that is being processed, i.e. actual observations, regularities, hypotheses, and testing. That content is the science.

In line with my way of seeing things, the process you've described, what we call the scientific method, is not correct or incorrect, it is more or less useful. We have found it to be very useful in a lot of cases. I'm a big fan of the scientific method.

A couple of questions: what is "flaming", what defines a "troll", and what is a "sockpuppet", or rather, what is "sockpuppetry"? (I don't use "social media" platforms like Facebook, etc., so I'm probably way behind the curve on such terminology.) — Michael Zwingli

Although racism or similar sin may be the harshest judgement, based on my observations, the most common reason given for banning is "low quality posts." That's what Marco was gotten for. That standard is much less definitive and is open to wide interpretation. Some people think the moderators are too quick to judge.

He has rejoined several times since then. — SophistiCat

might it be thought that "Prishon" was another avatar of said "Marco"? I must say, the notion occurred to me almost immediately that "Graveltty" might in actuality be "Prishon" with a newfound discipline, mostly because of the whole "physics" thing, but also...uuhhh...general tenor. — Michael Zwingli

For what it's worth, I was a strong supporter of Marco in his original iteration, the name of which I can't remember. You can go back and see how several of us tried. That being said, he has not just been resurrected once, or twice, or a few times. I've lost count. At least 10 I think. He clearly has some problems and he's taking it out on the forum. From the things he's said, this isn't the first on-line community he has disrupted.

Whatever my thoughts on the original banning, he clearly does not belong on the forum. He's the last person who should be unbanned.

You have a good attitude toward all this. Welcome to the forum.

Graveltty was banned a couple of days ago. May we have some idea why? I thought he was contributing well on one thread, and on others I did not myself notice anything objectionable. Did he break a rule or cross a line? — tim wood

I think he was another iteration of Marco, the Man With a Thousand Usernames.

I can not participate in many of the threads because I do not have enough knowledge to participate. When wanting to be a member of a group it is part of the deal that we know something abouthow and what members of the group think. Especially with western philosophy, it is essential to know "how" the thinking is done. That is the higher-order thinking skills. This is different from eastern thinking.

We might say yoga is a more physical-spiritual and philosophical experience than the more abstract western philosophy. You know, being the good you want to be, rather than holding a concept of good at arm's length and analyzing it. :lol: Thanks to a radio explanation I listen to last night, I kind of get the west has more of a mind/body disconnection than the east and this seems to come from the linear logic of Aristotle? — Athena

As I always say, there's only one world. All the different ways of talking about it are describing the same thing. Although your description of the difference between eastern and western philosophies is somewhat condescending, there is truth in it. My vast oversimplification is that the eastern approach deals with awareness and the western approach deals with reason. If you leave out either one, you leave out half the world.

Is THAT true or a fact?? — Artemis

Neither, all the way down.

Okay, I will accommodate that request. If you care about democracy you might care that it is based on Greek and Roman philosophy and being literate in those philosophies is important to manifesting and defending democracy. — Athena

This is a good argument. I had a couple of ideas for a response, but was not satisfied. I'll work on it.

I will also argue it is not possible to expand our consciousness very much without being literate in philosophy. The more we learn, the bigger our lives are, and the bigger our lives are, the smaller the problems are. — Athena

I don't think being literate in philosophy is necessary in order to "expand our consciousness." Lao Tzu might say the opposite is true. Learning is important to me too, but not necessarily learning about philosophy.

Is that true or a fact? — Artemis

Neither. It's philosophy.

I have to smile. Inside your head is quivering meat, the way inside an engine is quivering metal. I am more a psychologist than an engineer, and psychology is not a science because it operates exactly in the contradiction you just neatly expressed there. It turns out that the the view of the inside of one's own head that one gets is a poor one at best. — unenlightened

You've jumped to a lot of conclusions just based on my acknowledgement that I was uncertain I was correct about what I wrote. I wasn't denying the value of my internal experience. I have claims to being a psychologist also - 3 years in college and 50 years of paying attention. Yes, psychology is a science. And the view one get's from inside one's head is the only view one gets.

There are obviously standards for being a professional engineer that don't apply for trying to be an amateur philosopher — Artemis

I've been thinking about this issue and your post set me thinking again. I have not been satisfied with my answers to why philosophy is different than science. Thinking about a response to your post, it struck me - When science broke off from philosophy, it lost all the parts of it where you could be wrong. Philosophy as it remains is about values, not facts. You can talk about truth or facts, but nothing you say will be true or a fact. This ties in with my oft repeated refrain - metaphysical propositions are not true or false, only more or less useful.

Yes, of course, I know you and most of the others here disagree strongly. Maybe I should start a new thread.

So, there are some Christian philosophers who are saying that there are very basic arational beliefs that support Christian conclusions. This would mean that the statements "This is a hand," and "God exists," are equivalent, neither require a justification in that they are arational. I don't see this as a correct interpretation of what Wittgenstein is putting forward in OC. — Sam26

I don't know what Wittgenstein said or meant, but I think this approach provides a framework for a valid belief in God. If I have experienced God directly, I believe he exists. You have not, so you don't.

the required justification for the existence of God — Sam26

There is no required justification for the existence of God.

He had this analogy of philosophy as the engine of language idling. — unenlightened

I like this a lot.

A good engineer probably does not need the manual very often, does not need the advice of his fellows very often, but he does not despise or totally ignore these things either. — unenlightened

Just to be clear, it seems like you are saying that an engineer needing a manual and help from others is analogous with someone learning philosophy needing philosophical readings. Is that correct? I don't think that is an apt analogy. As I've noted in this thread, science and engineering are different from philosophy. There are specific standards that can be applied and a specific body of knowledge is required. Since science split off from philosophy, what's left are subjects that exist inside people's minds. I am as likely to know what is going on inside my mind as anyone else.

As I wrote that ,I wondered, do I really believe the things I've just written. I'm not sure. I guess we'll see.

Silent philosophy is a philosophy where the underlying truth of an inanimate substance gives birth to a new sense of life within man. — Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury

This sounds like meditative practice. Awareness.

Welcome to the forum.

You'll need to read the whole essay I linked to to get a better sense of what I'm talking about. — baker

I didn't read all of it, but I read about four pages. As I noted in my response, the idea of bare attention is interesting. It's an issue that comes up in the Tao Te Ching. What does it mean to experience the Tao? Lao Tzu writes about the sage "embracing" the Tao. I've always said "experiencing the Tao directly," which isn't very satisfying for the reasons the author of your link notes. It seems obvious that it's not possible to experience it directly, so what does the sage do and what can I do?

I don't think that undermines the meaning or value of Kafka's quote. I think his take is more in line with Lao Tzu's. I see Taoism as much more down-to-earth than many forms of Buddhism. It is intended for practical purposes, e.g. ruling a county. It isn't aimed at enlightenment so much as getting down to work.

So, where does that leave me? I don't know. Your comment has allowed me to recognize a hole in my understanding. I always knew it was there, but I waved my arms instead of digging in. Thanks for your help.

It should be noted that the lines you quote from Kafka are half of aphorism #104, the last of the series titled Reflections On Sin, Pain, Hope, And True Way. — Paine

I had never heard of this book. I found this link to a pdf version on the web:

https://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/KafkaKierkegaardBible/AphorismsFranzKafkatransJoyceCrick.pdf

I'll spend some time with it. I appreciate the information.

Whatever "doing philosophy" may be, texts that strive to be more than a list of self-sufficient explanations need to live together in a certain way to become what they are talking about. I suppose one could look at that element in a purely instrumental fashion but there is more to it than that. — Paine

I am a fan of aphorisms. In presentation at least, the Tao Te Ching, a book that has had a strong influence on my understanding of the world, is very aphoristic. I'll read through Kafka's text and see if I have anything else to say.

Thanks.

I presented then my position, very clearly and with a lot of details and references. Which, as it seems, you have obviously ignored, even if it shows a thorough work, which obviously takes some time to compile, as well as a considerable interest in your topic. — Alkis Piskas

Now, now. Don't be tetchy. Or condescending for that matter. If you're not willing to deal with me misunderstanding sometimes, you are not obligated to respond, although I'm interested in hearing your ideas.

You need not be an idealist to use Math or a physicalist to use Physics. "Using" and "being" are totally different kind of things. There may be a connection between them, but only sometimes, not always. — Alkis Piskas

I guess I'm confused. You agree with me that metaphysical positions have no truth value, but then it seems like you say that such a position, e.g. idealism, physicalism, realism..., reflects an actual state of being.

I think a pragmatist would say there is no difference between using and being. I sometimes call myself a pragmatist.

What do you suppose is the relation between this thread and ↪T Clark's You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher? — Banno

Do you think God should read philosophy too? He already has to read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, all those other religious documents, and the Wall Street Journal.

This is called the Hard Problem of Umpiring which leads us to the Blindspot of Sport. — Tom Storm

I think you've opened up the field of sports philosophy with your new insights.

Of philosophical interest might be why we strive for these objective measures of human performance. And why is it no surprise that the rationalising Greeks and industrialising English seem to have led the way in the invention of formal sport? — apokrisis

Watching children and thinking of myself when I was one, this starts early. Making up rules for everything. Arguing about how to apply them. Arguing about measurements. Arguing about everything. I wonder if it's something built in like language.

If I don't know if it's true, then why shouldn't I say it? — GraveItty

I have no response to this.

Do you agree that energy is advancing-power? — Varde

In physics, power is energy used per unit time. A watt is one joule/sec.

Why shouldn't I say that? — GraveItty

Because you don't know if it's true, you just think it must be true. You haven't indicated you have any specific scientific knowledge about whether memory includes comparison. I infer that you don't.

Football is different, except for interference calls! — jgill

Yes, there is always some interpretation. There are rules and referees and umpires to judge how they apply and if they are being followed. The ump at the plate determines whether the runner is safe or tagged out.

You are discussing the details of how memory must work without knowing what science already knows about how it does work.
8m
— T Clark

Where did I say that? Again, you put the words into my thread. — GraveItty

You said this:

Our memory doesn't make use of comparison. — GraveItty

That's what you say. Of course there is. Introspection for example is non-scientific. Even philosophical. Besides, why should science not be included in philosophy? They were a whole once. I can't help it that you have no understanding of it... No offense... — GraveItty

You are discussing the details of how memory must work without knowing what science already knows about how it does work.

Whenever the Olympics come around, I bring out my diatribe about which sports should not be included. Here's Clark's rule - If I can't figure out who won without being told, it doesn't belong. Examples of things I will allow:

• Football (soccer)
• Basketball
• Swimming
• Track and field
• Archery.

Examples of things I won't allow:

• Ice dancing
• Figure skating
• Gymnastics
• Diving
• Synchronized swimming.

No one from the International Olympics Committee has called asking my opinion yet.

I'm not looking for a scientific explanation. I already have one. — GraveItty

No one has anything but a preliminary understanding of how memory and consciousness work. Trying to do the philosophy without adequate understanding of the mechanics won't work.

I was about to submit a discussion post called "Can consciousness be simulated" but I saw that a post with the same exact name and pretty much the same content was made 2 years ago.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6539/can-consciousness-be-simulated/p4 — Flaw

Consciousness and what they call the hard problem gets discussed here a lot. No reason not to do it again. As for the earlier post with the same name, at two years, the statute of limitations has definitely run out.

I have found the subject frustrating enough that I usually don't participate in consciousness discussions. One suggestion - define the terms you mean to use well. Good luck.

Welcome to the forum.

How many Big Macs need to be eaten per annum in order to maintain [corporate-state capitalism]? — 180 Proof

My standard - one Big Mac, one Quarter Pounder with Cheese, and large fries once a month. No drink.

If I see a face, I don't compare it to a stored memory and (consciously or unconsciously) to the memory of the face I have. How could it be like this? If I compare them, and see that they are the same then, well, how can I remember I have seen the face before? — GraveItty

I don't think understanding how the brain or consciousness works is a matter for logic or seems-to-me philosophy. It's a matter of psychology, cognitive science.

As I said back then, I find it frustrating that the internet is full of allegorical interpretations of this poem, the hawk representing the Nazis or violent destructive humanity, for example. But it's not an allegory. I find myself wondering if the people who interpet it that way have ever seen a hawk before. Probably what's happening is that with the wider exposure to literary and film and art criticism that's been enabled by the internet, bad interpretations abound, with some folks apparently thinking that a non-allegorical interpretation of any work of art is simple-minded. — jamalrob

I like the poem a lot. It's very sensual. As you note - it says what it means and it means what it says. Nothing hidden here. Not an allegory.

I have also been frustrated, and often amused, by interpretations of Robert Frost poems. One in particular I remember was an interpretation of a poem written in 1915 that was identified as an example of Frost's proto-postmodernism. And there was the interpretation of "A Dust of Snow" in which the author referenced "hemlock" as a symbol for death, unaware that the "hemlock" Frost was referring to was a North American evergreen, not a toxic bush used for making poison.

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, — Tolkien

I do have some sympathy for digging into the language of a poem looking for deeper meanings. I remember an interpretation of Frost's "Wild Grapes" that identified and explained some of Frost's allusions to Greek myths. It added depth and perspective without changing my basic understanding of the poem.

Thanks. I hadn't watched it in a long time.

What you seem to be talking about is "bare attention". — baker

As I wrote in my previous post, I don't remember hearing the term "bare attention" before. Thinking about it, I can see that it could be a useful way of thinking about these issues.

What you seem to be talking about is "bare attention". A very popular term in popular "Eastern" spirituality, but highly controversial within the actual Eastern traditions themselves. See the passage I quote above from Buddhism. — baker

Here is some of the text about Buddha you quoted:

So it's important to understand that there's no such thing as bare attention in the practice of the Buddha's teachings. Instead of trying to create an unconditioned form of attention, the practice tries to create a set of skillful conditions to shape and direct the act of attention to make it appropriate: truly healing, truly leading to the end of suffering and stress. Once these conditions are well developed, the Buddha promises that they will serve you well — even past the moment of Awakening, all the way to your very last death.

I don't remember ever hearing the term "bare attention" before. Beyond that, I don't see how anything written here contradicts what I've written. All of the posts in this discussion have been painted with a pretty broad brush. There's plenty of room for dotting "t"s and crossing "i"s and working out the details.

I think the following is the essence of what we're talking about and Clark declares his preference.

I clarified my understanding of the relationship between awareness and rationality. For me, awareness comes first.
— T Clark — praxis

Yes. Thanks.

Conclusion: One cannot be both physicalist and dualist or spiritualist at the same time. In other words, one cannot say that everything is physical (matter, body) and also that that there are things that are not physical (mind, soul, spirit) at the same time. It is like saying that sometimes I believe I am only a body and other times I believe that I am something more than a body (i.e. there's a non-physical part in me). Of course, one can believe both, but then he is in conflict! — Alkis Piskas

For me, and for Collingwood, a metaphysical position is not a belief. It is not true or false. It has no truth value. It is a choice, one that depends on a particular situation. So, yes, I can be both a physicalist and idealist at the same time. I can use mathematics (idealism) to address questions in physics (physicalism).

You might have made ↪tim wood the happiest man in the Bay State. — Mww

@tim wood is the one who steered me to Collingwood. I've given him credit many times. Thanks for doing it again.