That's a bit like saying that cage-fighting has replaced wallpaper. Apples and oranges, as they say. — Pattern-chaser

Seems to me it's more like apples and apple trees.

Why not solve the problem at the source? In all my time fixing things, (fixing things is a large part of my current job) temporary solutions have only caused more problems. They're ok if you need a quick fix to get through a day, but they don't last forever. If you want to want a functioning system, you need to address problems directly. — TogetherTurtle

I'm not talking about a "quick fix" or "temporary solution." Science was once part of philosophy, so let's make the philosophy of science part of science. But we won't call it that, we'll call it something not freighted with negative meanings for some scientists. I love philosophy, but that doesn't obscure the fact that it really isn't anything, at least not anymore.

Instead of masquerading useful philosophy as something else, we should instead prove that philosophy is useful. It's certainly possible to do so, we've already discussed the uses. — TogetherTurtle

I'm not suggesting masquerading, I'm talking about unmasking. The philosophy of science belongs as part of science. Splitting it off is artificial and misleading.

when the same thing keeps happening again and again in a society over decades, it cannot be sensibly regarded as an aberration. Universities inevitably have dropouts, and hero-worship inevitably has berserkers. This is our normal. — unenlightened

120/year doesn't quite match up with "happening again and again." It's not an aberration or anything else, it's as close to a non-event as you can get. 120 out of a population of 340 million. Put your attention somewhere else. You're not going to save a significant number of lives by any action you take.

There is a lot of energy being put there though. — csalisbury

True. Those are probably bad examples, but the fact that 1.2 million people die by those diseases and 1/10,000 th that many die in mass shootings gives a perspective on how much attention should be put on the mass killings.

Un's post - and mine for that matter - don't strike me as outrage, much less the outrage of a rube grifted by yellow journalists. — csalisbury

Looking back, I don't think "outrage" is the wrong word. If you'd like, I'll change it to "alarm," along with the aforementioned lack of perspective. On the other hand, the general public and media response is outrage and condemnation. As to whether you and Unenlightened are rubes, fact is you wouldn't have made such a big deal about this if the media hadn't made this a sideshow.

Aren't those things based in philosophical ideas? — TogetherTurtle

Yes, but I think they should be called something else because of the disdain and lack of understanding felt for philosophy.

I think if we want to be respected, it's up to us to gain that respect. We can't count on outsiders to just give us the benefit of the doubt when everything they see says otherwise. — TogetherTurtle

I don't really care if philosophy is respected. I come to it for my own benefit, for what it gives me. I got here from science and math. That lead me to want to look deeper into what stands behind it.

I don't think anything self-identified as philosophy will be able to make much of a contribution to science. Call it something else - scientific methodology, principles of science, goals of scientific investigations, the structure of scientific knowledge.

Moral and political philosophy might have more to offer.

t is hypocritical to have physics without metaphysics, but those who live hypocrisy don't realize they're living it. I would assume even you and I live some sort of hypocrisy. We have to rely on others to make us question things we take for granted. — TogetherTurtle

I don't think hypocrisy is the right word. Lack of perspective is more like it. Lack of introspection maybe. Lack of an understanding of principles.

Is watching a film with subtitles a drastically different experience from watching one in a language that you already understand? Will I never really get Jean-Luc Godard? Even if I become fluent in French, is the experience of watching a French film at all the same? — thewonder

Some of my favorite movies have subtitles. I'd much rather see subtitles than hear dubbing. We visited my brother, who was living in France back in the late 1980s. We watched a French dubbed version of "SOS Fantomes" (Ghostbusters). It wasn't hard to follow since I'd seen it, but I can't imagine it being as funny with a voice other than Bill Murry's.

I have always wondered something similar to what you are asking about when reading translations. It seems to me that faithfully translating a book would take as much skill as writing it in the first place.

We modern Americans have become rather fussy about these little clusters of deaths brought about by armed individuals. Suppose the media stopped being the media and stopped reporting each one with loving care. Do you think the incidence of mass shootings would go up or down? — Bitter Crank

Here's something I've always remembered that I think is relevant - When my 34 year old son was 9, there was an attempted kidnapping in a town that was about 30 miles away. Unlike Kansas or Minnesota, 30 miles is a long way in Massachusetts. One of our neighbors wouldn't let their children play outside for a week after the incident. I think that's the difference. It probably wouldn't reduce the number of incidents, but it would help stop the continuous low level anxiety that many people feel. People are very bad at estimating risk.

It does reveal a shocking lack of perspective. 6 people were killed in a head on collision near my home town. 1/2 of the 6 were decidedly in the wrong (they were on the wrong side of the freeway). Where was the outrage? — Bitter Crank

When the bomb went off during the Boston Marathon, five people were killed and a couple of hundred injured. Elsewhere, a similar event is sometimes known as "a good day in Aleppo." Americans are such pussies. 3,000 people die in New York and the entire country changes it's way of life and outlook. Elsewhere, a similar event is sometimes known as "a bad week in Aleppo."

The state governments are redundant because there are already county and municipal governments. — Noah Te Stroete

In Massachusetts, there are effectively no counties anymore. They still exist but have very little to do and very little authority. There is no unincorporated land in Massachusetts. All land is located within the boundaries of the 351 cities and towns. Municipality sizes vary from 700,000 to a less than 100. The State government (actually, Massachusetts is a Commonwealth not a state, whatever that means) is the one unifying governmental force within the Commonwealth. Massachusetts has very different politics, demographics, and way of life than many other states. I don't want the portions of the government which are closest to home to be run from Washington.

Yes. Compassion good. That kind of article that portrays high school shooters as misunderstood loners in need of love, not so good. No one's ever been around for that. — fdrake

I have a friend to whom some terrible things happened when she was young. It's amazing to hear her speak with compassion and understanding about the family member who did those things to her. It changed the way I think about people who do bad things.

I think of Pope John Paul II, who went to the prison in Italy and washed the feet of the man who shot and almost killed him.

I think of Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions set up after apartheid ended. To me, that was one of the great political acts in history.

Compassion and understanding lead where they lead. They don't mean that you don't hold people responsible for what they've done.

Why this question you might ask? Well having children means creating new humans, and creating new humans is like gambling. There is no guarantee your offspring will be healthy, have a good life, will grow old. There is no guarantee that your offspring will not die a tragic death, or becomes not a criminal or even a serial killer. So with every born human and animal the cycle of suffering will never end. And this is just a few examples. Suffering is absolutely guaranteed in life. Happiness in the other hand not. Of course procreating is natural. But natural does not necessary mean moral. So the question ist, is procreating even morally justifiable? — Baskol1

The position that people should not have children because birth leads to suffering is called "antinatalism." There is currently a thread called "On Antinatalism" running on the forum. I guess there's no reason you can't start another, but I suggest you at least take a look and see the arguments that are made there.

Imagine that we're in an alternate world (called WG) where everything is green. — frank

Are you saying 1) that the only electromagnetic radiation that exists in that world has wavelengths between 500 and 565 nanometers? Or 2) do you mean that that is the only light that people could detect visually? Or 3) something else?

If you mean 1), I doubt that that world could exist. If you mean 2), I would guess that people would break the spectrum they could see into many colors with their own names just as we do. The distinctions they made between colors would be just as real to them as the distinctions we make between red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet are to us.

Reification is defined as treating an idea as a concrete thing. For instance a rock is a concrete thing, you can see it, you can touch it, even smell it or taste it. You can do that with dog hair too, and with ocean water. You can't do that with a country, but you can do it with concrete things that you define as part of a country, or with a part of a concrete map that you define as a country. You can't do that with inertia, or gravity, or spacetime. That's the distinction. — leo

So gravity and spacetime are reifications. What about electromagnetic radiation, subatomic particles, the universe, galaxies, forests, black holes. I'll go back to oceans again. Salt water is concrete, but I don't see how an ocean is. We know space time using the same general techniques as we use to know stars - indirectly through observations of radiation which has been travelling for millions or billions are years.

Would you consider commands to also fall under free speech ? — Wittgenstein

Free speech rights are rights granted to people as protection against government restrictions. The government does not need such protection. They have the power.

Take Hitler for example. — Wittgenstein

Take Jefferson. Take Mandela. Take Walesa. Take Aquino. Take Havel.

Hate speech must die. — StreetlightX

I don't know how it is in Australia, but the UK is more willing to censor speech than the US is, even what we would consider fairly innocent. I don't have any particular criticism. Different societies have different traditions.

High school shootings should probably be considered domestic terrorism; the actions of the perpetrators should be condemned, but the issues that lead them to it should be understood so that they can be addressed. — fdrake

Condemnation doesn't lead to solutions. It only helps conceal fear. Solutions come from understanding and even, yes, compassion for people who do bad things.

Good job no one said then, because a lack of perspective is a major symptom of incipient mass murder.

Nevertheless, as I pointed out, there are parallels between the US and Viking cultures, and one of them is the centrality of the hero, the individual of power to individual and national identity, hence the abhorrence of anything "social". — unenlightened

Yes, I was overstating my case for emphasis, although I think the Viking theory is silly. Again, it's people trying to say something to make themselves feel better, more in control of frightening things.

That explains it. I was busy in the 1980s studying classics, advancing the sexual revolution, going crazy, working... — Bitter Crank

There is no shame in those things. Well...some of them.

Should state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence. — Wittgenstein

Ordering killings is completely different than promoting violence in general. I'm sure the first would be considered conspiracy to murder. The second, as long as it directly lead to violent action, should be protected.

Actually, I misunderstood where you were going with the OP. This issue is what I really wanted to talk about, but I didn't want to go off on a tangent. — T Clark

I wanted to go a little further with this, beyond just reasons, or lack of, in the universe at large. I think looking for reasons for human behavior is misleading. Most things most people do are for no reason at all. We add the reasons later because we can't live without putting things into words.

Never heard of them. — Bitter Crank

They are primarily a 1980s band.

Well... school shootings would be less... likely if... there were... less readily available gu-

I'll be over there in the corner. — fdrake

I grew up hunting and shooting, although I don't own a gun now and have no desire to. A couple of years ago we found my brother's and my shot guns and rifles down in my step mothers basement. I hadn't shot them in 45 years. We told her she could give them to a friend.

I am comfortable around guns and generally believe that seriously restricting gun ownership in the US won't work. I think all the outrage put into trying could better be spent elsewhere. On the other hand, I know conservative gun owners who believe that reasonable restrictions are a good idea.

What is the perspective thats lacking? What does that perspective reveal? — csalisbury

I think it reveals that our society is unable to understand what is important. 120 people. It makes me sick when TV and other media broadcast hysterical reports full of outrage and fake tears. It's such bologna. The worst thing is that the kind of action that really can address violence does not come from attitudes of horror and outrage.

For what it's worth, the murder rate in the US is half of what it was in 1980. 650,000 die of heart disease annually. Cancer 600,000. Let's put our energy there.

Hmm. Perhaps I have a different idea of what reason is. The thrust of the op is is that 'I don't like Mondays' does not count as a reason, even if it counts as a cause, and neither does 'I don't like foreigners'. — unenlightened

Actually, I misunderstood where you were going with the OP. This issue is what I really wanted to talk about, but I didn't want to go off on a tangent.

The song is one of my favorites. I think "there is no reason" is a great reason. I think it applies to most things in the world, in two senses - First, I have said many times that I don't think the universe has any reasons in it. All we can do is describe how it is. Why - just because, which is what "I don't like Monday's means. Second - I think it goes further - not only are there no reasons, there are no causes also. I'm not sure about that. Still working on it.

One of the reasons I love the song is that, although it is obviously ironic and cynical, I also find it moving. I like to think the Boomtown Rats meant it that way. It puts you in the girl's mind, makes her human, in a way you couldn't do otherwise.

Re the other claims, it's a matter of there being zero empirical evidence for there being any extramental normative values, any extramental moral stances, etc. — Terrapin Station

Really? You don't think there are genetic or biological factors in human behavior, including how we treat other people, e.g. mothers and fathers protecting their children? I am skeptical about ideas of sociobiology, but that doesn't mean I don't see any biological contribution.

One reason why the Papacy rejected Martin Luther's epistemic defense at his trial, in which he wanted to review the arguments mechanically, "through scripture and reason", is because the Papacy very much prefers the system of a living magisterium: — alcontali

Are you making the case that a more rational approach to morality is less corruptible? I don't necessarily disagree with that, although I don't think it changes the basic nature of morality.

A couple of mass shootings in the US today, Dayton, and before that El Paso. The nothing-newness of this is obvious and much as philosophers would like there to be, 'there are no reasons.' Facebook would think it racist of me to mention that we are usually talking about white males. — unenlightened

I just checked the web. The worst year for mass shootings in the US since 1982 was 2017 with about 120 deaths. 2018 and 2019 data are not included. 120 out of 340,000,000 people. Out of more than 17,000 murders in 2017. To try to say this is some kind of epidemic of Viking berserkers shows a lack of perspective.

I'm saying that if you believe in curved spacetime, curved spacetime is as real to you as unicorns and ghosts are real to people who believe in them. While if you don't believe in unicorns or ghosts, they exist to you as an idea, just like curved spacetime exists to me as an idea. — leo

Everything we know, everything we think is metaphorical. Spacetime is as real as gravity, inertia, atoms, countries, oceans, dog hair, and so on and so on. The world isn't split up into anything until we come along and do it. Everything is a reification. Why pick on spacetime?

I think this says more in 33 words than most of us could say in 20 or 30 times that many. And it gets the sense of the thing, and with a revealing clarity. So I could go on, but why when the best thing is just to re-read or even memorize, T Clarks' 33 words. — tim wood

Awww, shucks... Thank you.

Morality is either properly reductionist, i.e. axiomatic, or else, invariably subject to infinite regress. As Aristotle wrote, "If nothing is assumed, then nothing can be concluded". Therefore, morality always requires the explicit appointment of Kantian categorical imperatives.

In other words, any objective answer entirely depends on the axiomatic foundation for morality that you retain. — alcontali

I don't agree with your analysis. It makes something which is fundamentally human and tries to make it mechanical. Morality is a matter of human values. To the extent those values are universal, I guess you could say they're "absolute." But to the extent they are cultural and personal, they are not.

Otherwise by that logic I can just say that unicorns are as real as dog hair because I can think about unicorns, it's just a matter of thinking about them and they become concrete, they exist! But then let's stop disrespecting or ridiculing people who believe in ghosts or in the afterlife, because it's concrete to them just like curved spacetime is to you. — leo

Are you saying that unicorns and ghosts are as real as spacetime? Also, I don't understand why you would feel the need to ridicule people who believe in ghosts or the afterlife anyway. Here we are whining about how scientists ridicule us about our beliefs.

How do I go about studying as efficiently as possible? That's a massive question, I know, but any guidance is of great appreciation. — NickP

I suggest somewhere along the line you take a little time for eastern philosophies. I find them much more in line with my own feeling for how the world works. Try the Tao Te Ching. It's the foundational source for a major philosophy and you can read it in an hour. That's an important intellectual lesson - you get as much credit for reading and easy, quick classic as you do a long, difficult one. Stephen Mitchell's translation is very accessible, although some will tell you it's not authentic. There are a lot of translations available on the web.

And don't forget this. It's from Kafka, it's important, and I try to use the quote at least twice a week:

You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait. Do not even wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.

To summarize - you have to learn to trust your own judgment and understanding.

when while studying general relativity we are told that matter tells spacetime how to curve and the curvature of spacetime tells matter how to move, it's very easy to start reifying spacetime as a concrete entity — leo

People often call things "reification" as a way of undermining the legitimacy of an idea. Spacetime is as real as gravity, electrons, and dog hair. There's a good argument to be made that calling something "dog hair" is also reification, but that will just make scientists even surer we are all boneheads.

People tend to learn things in the wrong order. Theory follows practice, and not the other way around. That is why you better get lots of work experience in your field first, before even getting a degree. The other way around will often make you sound like an arrogant prick who seeks to "skip the hard part". — alcontali

Good post.

Well, if you want to include epistemology in metaphysics then it is completely and utterly true, without controversy, that science has metaphysics, which was my original assertion in this thread. It seemed like, though I could be wrong, he took associating metaphysics with science as religious. (I am not quite sure what was going on there, since he didn't quite respond to me). But if he is taking epistemology to be a part of metaphysics, I can't see how metaphysics could possibly be problematic when associated with science.. — Coben

Whether or not you include epistemology in metaphysics, it is still philosophy and it's at the heart of science.

That said, you'll occasionally get a science popularizer like Massimo Pigluicii or a Carlo Rovelli who argue for the necessity of philosophy in science, which is nice. — StreetlightX

Carlo Rovelli has a great interview on "The Philosopher's Zone," a program from the Australian Broadcast Company. It was a couple of years ago. There was also a follow up interview by Tibor Molnar, an Australian philosopher. Here's a link to the Molnar interview. Down the page is also a link to the Rovelli one. About 30 minutes.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/an-answer-for-carlo-rovelli-and-his-quantum-problem/8659546

Gregory Bateson put it best: "The would-be behavioural scientist who knows nothing of the basic structure of science and nothing of the 3000 years of careful philosophic and humanistic thought about man - who can define neither entropy nor sacrament - had better hold his peace rather than add to the existing jungle of half-baked hypothesis". How many here can talk of both entropy and sacrament? — StreetlightX

Agree completely about half-baked philosophy and how it undermines credibility, but Bateson's statement is bologna. I don't have to study 3,000 years of philosophy to understand humanity.

Scientists look for patterns, but usually not passively, but rather as revealed by experiment. — tim wood

As I said, that may be true for physics, but it's not for evolutionary biology. Which isn't to say that such observational, historical sciences don't eventually have to be tested, not generally by experiment but by more observations, probably more focused this time.

Epistemology is the rules/viewpoints on how we know things, not metaphysics. — Coben

Epistemology is often included in definitions of metaphysics. I checked once and it came out about 50/50. To me it seems clear that it belongs as part of metaphysics. I suggest again that you take a look at the Collingwood paper referenced by Tim Wood.

I have no opinion on you. I just feel like all of a sudden I am the centre of attention, and since my posts were not responded to, IN A WAY I UNDERSTAND but people wanted to react, they decided to put a million-word posts in response to what I have written. Three very long posts buoyed up very quickly, and I don't see how they relate to my posts. A bit like being in the snake pit... look left, look right, you don't know where to look, there is danger by numbers. — god must be atheist

I went back and looked. As you said, there were three long responses to your post. They seemed reasonably responsive and clear. Also respectful. Usually, that kind of response would make someone feel good - like people are interested in what they have to say.