Science relies on there being an 'epistemic gap' between knower and known. And ultimately we're not apart from reality. So all knowledge is forever conditional, it can't be any other way. So 'cracking holism' requires breaking out of the dualistic mindset that underlies science. — Wayfarer
No, its an absolutely necessary logical conclusion. — Pseudonym
Ethical naturalism — Pseudonym
And as always in the modern view, Darwin trumps Plato, right? So ultimately it comes down to what survives, or what propagates; that's the only kind of 'meaning' that has currency in today's world. — Wayfarer
How do we fix science as a discipline so it is more completely pro-social? — apokrisis
You are the one who needs Scientism to justify your anti-Scientism. — apokrisis
all the different ways of thought will play themselves out in good old evolutionary fashion. — apokrisis
By not declaring every problem amenable to a scientific solution; by recognising what is and isn't a scientific problem. — Wayfarer
positions definite enough to be believed or doubted on the basis of some suitable form of evidence. — apokrisis
Essentially philosophy is scientific. — apokrisis
But it is silly to say that even reductionist science is a restricted part of philosophy. — apokrisis
This is where we disagree; I think philosophy is as much an art as it is a science. — Janus
It makes it a private matter, which in the context of trying to articulate a 'metaphysic of value', means that it doesn't have much to say. — Wayfarer
So in addition to being vacuous, closed-minded, toxic, cancerous, disingenuous, infantile, barren, and ignorant, and I'm now also a troll? — Pseudonym
Define art. — apokrisis
To reiterate and hopefully clarify, my only point is that such experiences cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated, not that they cannot be inter-subjectively agreed upon. And it is this sense that they cannot be counted as knowledge in the sense that empirical knowledge can be. I genuinely hope this explanation clears up your long-running misunderstanding of my position once and for all. — Janus
Like any diverse activity, as Wittgenstein pointed out, it cannot be precisely defined in some essentialist manner. — Janus
No inter-subjective corroboration, as opposed to mere agreement, is possible here just as it is not possible with religious and mystical experience, and, really, even philosophy. Corroboration would consist in universal agreement; the inability of any suitably good-willed and unbiased observer to disagree once they have been presented with, and understood, the evidence. This exists, if it exist anywhere in the the human enquiry, only in science, and more so in some categories of science than in others, it seems. — Janus
That is not a point. It is an assertion. And it is unsupported by any argument. Hence it is not worthy of anybody spending any time considering it. — andrewk
Further, it is an assertion that is observed to be wrong, as many people have been able to find answers to the questions they had about existence, through philosophy. The fact that Hawking has not was a problem for him, not for anybody else. Now you may say that the answers people have found are 'subjective', or 'illusory', or 'meaningless', but that's beside the point. They found answers that were helpful to them, that gave them greater peace of mind, acceptance, sense of purpose, or whatever else they were after. So for them, philosophy served its purpose. — andrewk
There are countless possible understandings of the human situation. — Janus
no will to understand the obvious — Janus
And again you are asking that it should be demonstrated that philosophy progresses in the way you think science does — Janus
The "vitriol" is a phantom projection of your own defensiveness, I would say. I certainly haven't felt any vitriol — Janus
One of my very favourite Hawking quotes:
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.” — Wayfarer
He might have found out by now ;-) — Wayfarer
You missed out callous and brazen. Those especially amused me. I could only read that bit in the tone of a communist Chinese denunciation of the Western bourgeoisie. The hyperbole dial cranked up to 11. — apokrisis
Theism is acceptable, phenomenology is acceptable, PoMo is acceptable. They each have their own way of arguing and their own matching notions of evidence. To be part of the stable of philosophies, they only have to pass some minimal critical thinking standards.
Science is then that part of philosophy which has become dominant as its particular kind of rigour has proven its value socially. And I agree that also - as reductionism - has often proven itself anti-social. — apokrisis
Is the model falsifiable?goes on to explain Hawking how feels the answers to questions like "why are we here?" are correctly answered by a deductive nomological model. — Pseudonym
This may be a point where there is less distance between our positions. Some philosophers do indeed debate in the way you describe, even (unfortunately) on this forum. I see such an approach as misguided and unhelpful. I don't think there is any useful role for the word 'wrong' in philosophy, and I think the way that some academic philosophers have lost sight of the role philosophy plays in giving meaning to people's lives is most unfortunate.If the the purpose of philosophy was to comfort people, then why do philosopher debate their theories using rational analysis. Why do they use terms like 'unpersuasive', 'invalid', even just plain 'wrong'. Refer me to a single philosophy paper... — Pseudonym
Is the model falsifiable?
If not then Hawking is doing philosophy, not science when he engages with such a model. Which makes his claim that philosophy is dead look rather confused. — andrewk
Some philosophers do indeed debate in the way you describe, even (unfortunately) on this forum. I see such an approach as misguided and unhelpful. I don't think there is any useful role for the word 'wrong' in philosophy, and I think the way that some academic philosophers have lost sight of the role philosophy plays in giving meaning to people's lives is most unfortunate. — andrewk
Yes, I agree with that. Ayn Rand's philosophy is an example of one I think it's good to talk people out of, as are the more extreme versions of nihilism. My overall impression though is that most philosophies are helpful rather than harmful.is it not a social duty to try and replace such philosophies with ones we believe are less harmful? — Pseudonym
science can answer questions of philosophy — Pseudonym
By the way I didn't say philosophy as 'comfort'. I don't mind the idea of philosophy as 'consolation', since that phrase has a distinguished history going all the way back to Boethius. But I draw the line at 'comfort'. Plus I think notions like 'purpose' are much richer and more open than consolation. — andrewk
science can answer questions of philosophy
— Pseudonym
I am not sure if you actually claim this Pseudo. — PossibleAaran
I'm wondering if the stock of abusive terms has been entirely used up yet, or if we have more to come.. — Pseudonym
science can answer questions of philosophy — Pseudonym
I am not sure if you actually claim this Pseudo — PossibleAaran
I've always thought of Philosophy as the examination of opinions and assumptions which are usually taken for-granted. — PossibleAaran
He just assumes a kind of Consequentialism and then uses science to work out consequences. That isn't using science to answer philosophical questions. That is assuming an answer without reflecting on what it means or trying to justify it, which is just what I defined Philosophy as not doing. — PossibleAaran
Despite SLX's protestations that I explain every position I hold with a doctoral length thesis otherwise I'm not to be taken seriously, I don't actually think an exposition of why I hold those beliefs is appropriate to the thread topic, — Pseudonym
your stance doesn't even meet the minimal criteria of meaningfulness - of sensical speech — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.