I think you are talking about the past, and in fact quite far back. I will quote myself from an earlier post: "Science started to be a separate subject a long time ago, even before the term "science" was formulated in the 19th century, acquiring such names as "epistemology" in early 16th century, etc. So, today they are two different fields of knowledge." — Alkis Piskas

I saw your quote , and I am not talking about the past. There have been , and always will be empirical accounts that are or less philosophical, more or less theoretical , more or less applied. Science doesnt differ from philosophy in terms of method , such as objectivity or testability, given that there are no universally shared methods among scientists. It is a matter of the conventionality of the language, how deeply the presuppositions underlying one’s account are explicitly articulated in the account.

Every major historical advance in the sciences is paralleled (and usually preceded) by a corresponding advance in philosophy. If science and philosophy were on independent tracks this could not be the case.

One difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy insists on logical certainty, which is a category error when applied to the empirical world. This is why progress is so scant.

I don't know... somebody answered the topic's question, and it got no attention. Instead, people here exchange maxims and quotes from those who they think are / were much smarter than themselves.

A patent lack of discipline to stay with the topic or even bother about the topic. Everyone instead just blathers on about anything that comes to their mind.

This is philosophy at its best.

One difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy insists on logical certainty, which is a category error when applied to the empirical world. This is why progress is so scant. — hypericin

Only certain approaches to philosophy are concerned with , or believe in , the value or coherence of logical certainty. On the whole the history of philosophy runs in parallel with the history of science , so if one progresses, the other must also. They are joined at the hip.

somebody answered the topic's question, and it got no attention. — god must be atheist

What was the answer?

What was the answer? — Joshs

It was not THE answer; it was AN answer.

I think there has been progress in philosophy.

Not too much, and the steps of progress are hindered by counter-arguments, but the hindering is done mainly by lay philosophers, not by professional ones.

Steps I know of:
1. rejection of deities' ruling the world and supernatural forces exerting influence on the natural world.
2. rejection of our perception of reality as a reliable thing to depend on to know what's out there. (Plato.)
3. "Cogito Ergo Sum" -- the only thing that is empirical knowledge yet it is proven to be necessarily true.
4. recognition of causation being a potentially mistaken effect, due to recurring coincidences. (Hume.)
5. recognition of empirical methods being useful. I can't tie it to one single philosopher.
6. Darwin's and the newer scientific neo-Darwinist evolution-theory. Evolution is a mechanism, in principle, and it's applied to living things, in practice.
7. recognition of illogical events in the real world, that defy the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. (Quantum theory.) This has given rise to the thought that the a priori truths we all accept as infallible are a product of our evolutionary minds. Our evolutionary minds never had to deal with things, because they never observed them, like going from place A to place B without traversing the distance between A and B.

I am not a professional philosopher. The professionals mainly deal (in my imagination, and I need to be corrected if necessary) with micro-issues in philosophy, such as "if the Earth was a breast, where would its nipple be?" (originally asked by my teacher and master, Paul. A. S.) — god must be atheist

I think there has been progress in philosophy.

Not too much, and the steps of progress are hindered by counter-arguments, but the hindering is done mainly by lay philosophers, not by professional ones.

Steps I know of: — god must be atheist

It might be a lot simpler just to list the paradigm shifts in empirical science over the past 400 years. If you examine the changing presuppositions underlying these shifts in scientific understanding closely enough you will realize that you are looking at none other than the history of progress in philosophy.

On the whole the history of philosophy runs in parallel with the history of science , so if one progresses, the other must also. They are joined at the hip. — Joshs

Assume for a moment that science is a huge ocean liner moving slowly through a deep sea. Where do you see philosophy in this picture?

Assume for a moment that science is a huge ocean liner moving slowly through a deep sea. Where do you see philosophy in this picture? — jgill

That’s a hard picture for me to swallow. I prefer to think of the history of science as a succession of different crafts , each more complex and sophisticated than the previous. The succession of crafts does not simply represent changes in the theoretical content of science, but also changes in the self-conception of scientific practice and method( e.g. hypothetico-inductive vs deductive).

Now let us imagine this historical succession of crafts not as a single line but as a series of parallel lines. Each craft can see similar boats on the port and starboard sides.

What makes the parallel boats similar is that they express variations on a common philosophical theme that marks the unity of an era of science and philosophy. What makes them different is that the language they use to express these ideas can be more or less conventional, operational, instrumental. At one extreme is a boat expressing the grand philosophical narratives of the era. At the other extreme is a boat expressing the applied technologies of the era. Each is a variation on a common theme.

Assume for a moment that science is a huge ocean liner moving slowly through a deep sea. Where do you see philosophy in this picture? — jgill

Analogously, I see philosophy as the Ship of Theseus (i.e. continuously repairing itself in dry dock by replacing worn-out parts) and science as Neurath's Boat (i.e. continuously rebuilding itself while at sea by replacing more suboptimal parts with less suboptimal parts).

Every major historical advance in the sciences is paralleled (and usually preceded) by a corresponding advance in philosophy. — Joshs

e.g.
Copernican heliocentricity?
Newton's gravity?
Darwinian evolution?
Germ theory of disease?
Boltzman's thermodynamics?
Einsteinian Relativity theories?
Hubble's Red Shift (expanding universe)?
Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty?
Universal Turing Machine?
Shannon's Information Entropy?
Frick and Watson's double helix?

The "corresponding advances in philosophy"? :chin:

Copernican heliocentricity?
Newton's gravity?
Darwinian evolution?
Germ theory of disease?
Boltzman's thermodynamics?
Einsteinian Relativity theories?
Hubble's Red Shift (expanding universe)?
Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty?
Universal Turing Machine?
Shannon's Information Entropy?
Frick and Watson's double helix? — 180 Proof

There have been theses written about the philosophical underpinnings of all of these scientific advances, such as the association between Newton and Descartes, Einstein and Kant, Darwin , Hegel and Schelling, Nietzsche and Freud, Watson and Peirce, Turing and Leibnitz.

Just as I thought ... :roll:

It might be a lot simpler just to list the paradigm shifts in empirical science over the past 400 years — Joshs

why did I not think of that. Anyhow, 180 proof did precisely that, so we owe him a thanks.

A patent lack of discipline to stay with the topic or even bother about the topic. Everyone instead just blathers on about anything that comes to their mind. — god must be atheist

Fish. I didn't put frozen fish on the shopping order.

I just observed that the topic "Is there an external material world?" at the moment of writing this has reached 33 pages and is very close to 1000 responses! — Alkis Piskas

I posted some nonsense in that thread. I think the advantage of those threads, is that it gives us living philosophers occassion to test our understanding of the history of philosophy and retread classical debates. But nothing new comes from it, it is more of an exercise to sharpen one's philosophical acumen.

Science is advancing. This is very obvious. But is philosophy? — Alkis Piskas

There have been very few significant philosophical advances in the past 100 years. At this point in history, philosophy is definitely not advancing.

There have been very few significant philosophical advances in the past 100 years. At this point in history, philosophy is definitely not advancing. — Merkwurdichliebe

So that must mean there must have been very few significant scientific advances in the past 100 years. Either that or your knowledge of philosophical advances over the past century(Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Kuhn, Rorty, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Wittgenstein) is poor.

Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Kuhn, Rorty, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Wittgenstein — Joshs

Name five contributions from any of those philosophers that have significantly advanced philosophy. Then we can argue about what constitutes a significant philosophical advancement.

So that must mean there must have been very few significant scientific advances in the past 100 years. — Joshs

I disagree. I would be interested to see how you came up with that meaning from what i wrote.

Since when? — Joshs

Aporia, when was that? Just follow this thread until it dies a natural death and report back.

Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Kuhn, Rorty, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Wittgenstein
— Joshs

Name five contributions from any of those philosophers that have significantly advanced philosophy. — Merkwurdichliebe

:smirk: :up:

think, for example, about the sophists, who tried to show how tricky our language and our thinking is — Angelo Cannata

Sophists had other purposes than establishing truths! I think you know what ...

Heraclitus: if everything is becoming, then an established truth cannot exist, it will be becoming as well — Angelo Cannata

Heractlitus was not taking about abtract ideas like "truth". He was talking mainly about the physical universe. His famous statement, "No man ever steps in the same river twice" refers to time and change in the physical universe. You can also think of this: if his statement was referring also to abtract ideas, like "truth", then the "ever changing" feature would apply to his statement itself, and he would be thus contradicting himself, because he certainly considered his statement as a truth!

There's another thing. maybe more important than the above: You seem quite certain about the things you say, and I'm sure you are considering them true, yet you maintain that you must always doubt about truths. Isn't this a loud contradiction?

No, you cannot always and constantly doubt. This is insane. Fortutately, you are only talking about it but you don't do it! :smile:

Science doesnt differ from philosophy in terms of method , such as objectivity or testability, — Joshs

There's no objectivity in philosopy. It's all subjective: opinions, viewpoints, arguments etc. Your above statement is based on your reality, your knowledge, your reasoning and your experience.

As for "testability" in philosophy, I can only see logical and reasoning testing to prove that something is either true or false. But this has nothing to do with scientific testing. Maybe you are talking about "psychology". You can find there a lot of testimg and experimentation.
I would be glad to hear about any other substantial testing carried out in philosophy ...

Every major historical advance in the sciences is paralleled (and usually preceded) by a corresponding advance in philosophy. — Joshs

Examples, please.

I posted some nonsense in that thread. I think the advantage of those threads — Merkwurdichliebe

OK.
BTW, what other thread are you referring to besides "Is there an external material world?" ?

Isn't this a loud contradiction? — Alkis Piskas

The contradiction is not in me, it is in the idea of truth. My reasoning starts from adopting the idea that truth exists and then I show that this adoption leads us to doubt, skepticism and agnosticism about truth. In other words, the reasoning that I show is: if truth exists, then the consequence of this is that it doesn't exist.

OK

There's no objectivity in philoso[ph]y. It's all subjective ... — Alkis Piskas

The principle of non-contradiction is "subjective"?

Logical fallacies are "subjective"?

The problem of the criterion is "subjective"?

The problem of induction is "subjective"?

Valid / sound inferences are "subjective"?

Speech acts are "subjective"?

Aporia are "subjective"?

Human facticity (i.e. natality-agency-fatality) is "subjective"?

Uncertainty is "subjective"?

Alienation is "subjective"?

... etcetera :chin:

:up:

No philosophical debate has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties - there's theism and there's atheism, both thrive and this, quite obviously, can't be because both are objectively true (~◇). That however doesn't mean we can't objectively decide which of two opposing ideas is true - it can be done, but not now and I don't havta spell it out why. Ad interim our worldview is gonna havta be subjectively determined, oui monsieur?

Of course they are subjective: are you able to think of them without automatically conditioning them with your brain? In other words: are you able to think of them without using your brain, that is, to think of them without thinking?

All these are either methods/tools or principles. I have never said that there aren't. In fact, I have referred to them in general when I said "I can only see logical and reasoning testing to prove that something is either true or false." And then I said "But this has nothing to do with scientific testing". My response was to @Joshs statement that "Science doesn't differ from philosophy in terms of method, such as objectivity or testability."

Therefore, I was talking about viewpoints, opinions, reasoning, argumentation and other subjective functions and processes that are involved in practising philosophy. If all these were objective, then philosophers would (have to) agree among them in almost everything, as is the case, in general, with scientists. There would not be all these endless differences among schools of Philosophy, philosophers or people carrying out philosophical discussions. Maybe we wouldn't even be in this place communicating to each other, because there wouldn't be actually a reason for.

As for the principles, I have rarily seen them beeing used in common philosophical discussions, as in here. I cannot say if and how often are used in academic circles. Maybe, because most of them are quite obsolote and also ar based on assumptions that are totally unrealistic for our times. (E.g. Aristotles "Mean" principle, which is about dualities such as Good vs Evil, God vs Satan, and other unsubstantial --at least today-- elements.)

You missed my whole point. And you wasted your time listing a dozen of methods and principles ...

Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Kuhn, Rorty, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Wittgenstein
— Joshs

Name five contributions from any of those philosophers that have significantly advanced philosophy. Then we can argue about what constitutes a significant philosophical advancement. — Merkwurdichliebe

You would first have to have read and understood these writers, or those contributing today to the leading edge of empirical research who find the work of these philosophers indispensable to their investigations. My simply naming contributions, which I could easily do, would make no sense otherwise.

So that must mean there must have been very few significant scientific advances in the past 100 years.
— Joshs

I disagree. I would be interested to see how you came up with that meaning from what i wrote. — Merkwurdichliebe

You assume science advances but philosophy hasn’t in the past 100 years. I am arguing that all scientific paradigms are examples of philosophical discourse , worldviews rendered into a more conventional language.

So the advance of science presupposes the advance of philosophy. Furthermore, in any historical period one can find cross-over writers who move back and forth between a scientific and philosophical form of exposition, showing the rest of us the relevance of philosophical work to science. Today there are numerous such writers working on important advances in psychological theory pertaining to everything from neuroscientific modeling ( Varela, Thompson) to schizophrenia, ptsd, autism, depression , grief, models of emotions , skilled action, perceptual recognition, psycholinguistics, consciousness studies and empathy (Shaun Gallagher, Matthew Ratcliffe , Andy Clark, Michel Bitbol, Dan Zahavi, Jan Slaby, Alva Noe, Thomas Fuchs, Hanne De Jaegher). We can add to this list philosophers of science like Joseph Rouse.

These writers have written often of the crucial importance to their work of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, the American Pragmatists, Heidegger, Kuhn, Wittgenstein and others I mentioned.

I haven’t even mentioned current physicists who recognize the vital relevance of philosophy for the sciences:

I’ll end with this quote from Lee Smolen:

Philosophers of the past “sometimes understood the problems we face more deeply than many of my colleagues today. For example, Leibniz was, to my understanding, the first to struggle with the main question that we face in trying to make a quantum theory of gravity-how to make a background independent description of a closed universe that contains both all its causes and all its observers. And Peirce was the first to articulate and try to solve the puzzle at the heart of the current debates in cosmology and string theory: what chose the laws that govern our universe? And what chose the initial conditions?”

“… in many cases philosophers are working on the same questions I work on-and developing ideas related to the ideas I hope to establish-but from a bracingly different perspective.”

“… fundamental physics has been in a crisis, due to the evident need for new revolutionary ideas-which becomes more evident with each failure of experiment to confirm fashionable theories, and the inability of those trained in a pragmatic, anti- philosophical style of research to free themselves from fashion and invent those new ideas. To aspire to be a revolutionary in physics, I would claim, it is helpful to make contact with the tradition of past revolutionaries. But the lessons of that tradition are maintained not in the communities of fashionable science, with their narrow education and outlook, but in the philosophical community and tradition.”

You would first have to have read and understood these writers, or those contributing today to the leading edge of empirical research who find the work of these philosophers indispensable to their investigations. My simply naming contributions, which I could easily do, would make no sense otherwise. — Joshs

Excuses eh? Can't even name one? Doesn't make for a very strong argument for your position.

You assume science advances but philosophy hasn’t in the past 100 years. I am arguing that all scientific paradigms are examples of philosophical discourse , worldviews rendered into a more conventional language. — Joshs

That is a stretch. Science and philosophy are completely separate. That is why universities usually have separate buildings for each. In your reasoning, there is no reason we cant say the same of advances in art and music or althetics - as rendering philosophy into more conventional language.

So the advance of science presupposes the advance of philosophy. Furthermore, in any historical period one can find cross-over writers who move back and forth between a scientific and philosophical form of exposition, showing the rest of us the relevance of philosophical work to science. — Joshs

No, it does not presuppose the advance of philosophy, because while science continues to advance, philosophy is going nowhere. A philosopher-scientist can go to the science building and make the most innovative and novel discoveries, but when he returns to the philosophy building, they will be covering the same old material as always. Any correlation one can percieve between scientific and philosophical progress is pure contrivance.