Two things: something is stored somewhere, and, nothing is ever learned twice. — Mww
In an obtuse fashion that might be a statement of the issue with which philosophy deals, but it's not philosophy. Philosophy isn't a subject so much as an activity, in which muddled ways of saying things are exposed and analysed. — Banno
Where does he say experience is "based on" memory? — Xtrix
"You don't have a sense of a door" but "perceive the door" -- I won't try figuring out your semantics here. — Xtrix
Sensation and perception are two separate processes that are very closely related. Sensation is input about the physical world obtained by our sensory receptors, and perception is the process by which the brain selects, organizes, and interprets these sensations. In other words, senses are the physiological basis of perception. Perception of the same senses may vary from one person to another because each person’s brain interprets stimuli differently based on that individual’s learning, memory, emotions, and expectations. — LUMEN. Introduction to Psychology
Philosophy is always involved in science; this doesn't mean they're the same.
It's worth remembering that both activities come from the human mind. They both attempt to question and understand the world consciously. Both are very careful, try to be precise, etc. — Xtrix
Again, the sciences being different of as branches of ontology (philosophy) — Xtrix
There's little evidence for monads in Leibniz' s formulation, if that's what you mean. Of course it's easy to make fun of minds far greater than your own after centuries of new knowledge, but the proposal wasn't unreasonable at the time. Not a huge leap from monads to atoms if you think about it. — Xtrix
"Leibniz was a metaphysicist" - sure. And also a mathematician, logician, inventor, natural scientist, and even to some a computer science pioneer. — Xtrix
Was it not the "same" science as Galileo's thought experiments of frictionless planes? — Xtrix
experiments were performed long before the Renaissance. — Xtrix
things can certainly be re-learned — Xtrix
The rules and principles of theory, reason, and other cognitive functions we use when dealing with the world consciously, scientifically, explicitly, etc. (...) just do not seem to play any role once we've reached expertise. — Xtrix
"it's something that does not show itself at all: it is something that lies hidden, in contrast to that which proximally and for the most part does show itself; but at the same time it is something that belongs to what thus shows itself, and it belongs to it so essentially as to constitute its meaning and its ground."(Being & Time, p. 35.) — Xtrix
Two previous data:
Where does he say experience is "based on" memory?
— Xtrix
Aristotle, Metaphysics A1. 980aff. : "It is from memory that men acquire experience", — David Mo
As you can see, the distinction between sensation and perception — David Mo
If this is so, a radical distinction cannot be made between the lived world and the rational-abstract world. Both form part of a complex and inseparable world. And if I understand you correctly, this is what you denied at the beginning of our discussion. — David Mo
(“...Empirical psychology must therefore be banished from the sphere of metaphysics (...). It is a stranger who has been long a guest; and we make it welcome to stay, until it can take up a more suitable abode in a complete system of anthropology...”) — Mww
If rules don’t play a part, how does one even become an expert? — Mww
"it's something that does not show itself at all: it is something that lies hidden, in contrast to that which proximally and for the most part does show itself; but at the same time it is something that belongs to what thus shows itself, and it belongs to it so essentially as to constitute its meaning and its ground."(Being & Time, p. 35.)
— Xtrix
Seems like “rule” would fit into that definition just fine. — Mww
If you agree with this point, either we have reached an agreement or we have had a misunderstanding. — David Mo
Philosophy is always involved in science; this doesn't mean they're the same. — Xtrix
Again, the sciences being different[..] as branches of ontology (philosophy) — Xtrix
Philosophy does not includes the natural sciences. — David Mo
Moreover, you give it a totally inappropriate name of scholastic origin: ontology. Ontology was the science of being qua being. Totally speculative. It was substituted little by little by natural sciences -mathematics is another thing-, which do not speak of the being as being but of concrete aspects of reality. — David Mo
And if there is one I would like you to give an example.Because vagueness like "science and philosophy" are "careful" doesn't say anything. And to say that philosophy is "precise" requires saying in what way. My mother is also serious and precise in making chocolate cake and we're not going to say she's a philosopher or a scientist. Words are meant to clarify similarities and differences, not to make indiscernible molasses. — David Mo
Leibniz was halfway between metaphysics and modern science. — David Mo
Today's philosophers usually know where the limits of philosophy lie better than you do. — David Mo
Before the New Science, the scientific method of experimentation was not used. — David Mo
the Pythagoreans experimented on sounds and the length of strings. But they did not create a method that applied to all fields of natural knowledge. — David Mo
That's why it's not the same as the hypothetical deductive method that Galileo devised and Newton perfected. — David Mo
This explains Eratosthenes' success in calculating the circumference of the Earth (you were wrong: it wasn't Aristarchus). — David Mo
But they limited themselves to the mathematical formulation of the problems and their application to observation. They did not move on to the method of confirming legal hypotheses, which is that of the New Science. — David Mo
First of all: I prevented some comments ago that I was speaking of natural sciences. If you want speak of human sciences some clarifications should be added.what makes science what it is is not a special inductive method — Xtrix
I suppose you must know what it means that "natural philosophy" includes the sciences. If you don't know it, the idea is "a little" confusing in your head.I'm not sure what "include" means here. I'm not saying the questions and problems of physics is "philosophical" work. As I said, they're different, but they're connected. Natural philosophy, which we now call the various branches of science, always presupposes something about the world. — Xtrix
I am sorry to displease you, but I did not say that Leibniz was not a metaphysicist, but that his metaphysics are intermingled with concepts of the new science. But the concept of the monad, which you vaguely relate to that of the atom, is central in Leibniz and one hundred percent metaphysical. And the difference between the atom, an entity that can be confirmed with scientific experience, and that of the monad, which is totally speculative, is abysmal. To begin with you are a monad, according to Leibniz, and you will not tell me that you are also an atom. I don't see you as an atom, really.I'm glad you've retracted your statement that Leibniz was a 'metaphysicist.' — Xtrix
Don't quote Heidegger to me, please. After fighting hard with his unpalatable Being and Time I learned that he himself acknowledged that he didn't know what Being was. For gurus, the ones from India.It has been maintained that 'being' is the 'most universal' concept[...]that it is indefinable, [...] and that it is held to be self-evident." — Xtrix
Why? You say you don't like it, that scientists don't say that, that there's a lot of criticism, that it's a myth... but you never explain what you mean specifically. It all comes down to vague quotes and vague disqualifications.still a rather controversial topic in the philosophy of — Xtrix
Finally something concrete! Now all that remains is for you to tell us about some of those experiments you are referring to. Because when you spoke of the Aristarchus experiments you were mistaken about the author and the concept: it was not an experiment. I'm really interested in knowing the medieval experiments you're talking about. I'm not joking.There were plenty of experiments before the 16th century, l — Xtrix
But I grant you that mine is the minority position. — Xtrix
Reference please? — Xtrix
But here Heidegger is talking about being, not rules. — Xtrix
If you want to deny that sciences are inductive and methodical you are alone. — David Mo
Chomsky is speaking of linguistic and social sciences, Kuhn speaks only of periods of scientific revolutions and Feyerabend is a rara avis without many influence in philosophy of science. — David Mo
suppose you must know what it means that "natural philosophy" includes the sciences. If you don't know it, the idea is "a little" confusing in your head. — David Mo
central in Leibniz and one hundred percent metaphysical. — David Mo
Don't quote Heidegger to me, please. After fighting hard with his unpalatable Being and Time I learned that he himself acknowledged that he didn't know what Being was. For gurus, the ones from India. — David Mo
It all comes down to vague quotes and vague disqualifications. — David Mo
I'm really interested in knowing the medieval experiments you're talking about. I'm not joking. — David Mo
While waiting for you to concretize your criticisms I will advance you that they have a flaw in principle: if you recognize that science and philosophy are not the same, it will be because they have different methods. Why else?
I would appreciate it if you would repeat the reference where Putnam says that science does not follow inductive methods. I can't find it. — David Mo
“People talk about the scientific method as a kind of fiction, but I think that even in physics where you do get experiments and tests that pretty much fit the textbooks, there’s a great deal that doesn’t and a great deal that shouldn’t.” —
Bryan Magee: "What’s the point of continuing to use the category, or the notion, or the term “science” anyway? Does it any longer clearly demarcate something differentiable from everything else?" —
Putnam: “I don’t think it does. If you’re going to distinguish science from non-science, that makes a lot of sense if you still have this old view that there’s this 'inductive method' and that what makes something science is that it uses it and uses it pretty consciously and pretty deliberately, and that what makes something non-science is either that it uses it entirely unconsciously (as in learning how to cook, you’re not thinking about inductive logic) or perhaps doesn’t use it at all, as metaphysics was alleged not to use it at all (I think unfairly). But both say that there’s a sharp line between practical knowledge and science and to say that the method which is supposed to draw this line is rather fuzzy, something we can state exactly— and attempts to state it by the way have been very much a failure still; inductive logic cannot be, say, programmed on a computer the way deductive logic can be programmed on a computer. I think the development of deductive logic in the last 100 years, and the development of the computer, have really brought home very dramatically just what a different state we’re in with respect to proof in the mathematical sciences which we can state rigorous canons for, and proof in what used to be called the inductive sciences, where we can state general maxims but you really have to use intuition, general know-how, and so on, in applying them.” —
I realize that, yes. “Rule”, ”being”.......one no more a mere a priori human logical construct than the other. — Mww
I don't see the rules of chess being a priori, — Xtrix
Therefore, they exist only because they had at one time been thought by rational agency, hence they are a priori in origin — Mww
Therefore, they exist only because they had at one time been thought by rational agency, hence they are a priori in origin
— Mww
That doesn't make them a priori in origin at all. It simply means a human mind conceived them at one point. — Xtrix
If we count any rule as a priori that human beings think up, then my rule of not eating after 8pm is an a priori truth. — Xtrix
I've read about Chomsky in both linguistics and politics. If you go to this bibliography and to Chomsky's official website at MIT, you will see how these are the subjects of his work. I don't know that he has written an article on science and Galileo - a book, of course not - but if you have that reference I would like to know about it. And a word of advice: you should be careful about your risky claims about what your opponent has or has not read. The shot may hit you in your own foot.You haven't read any of them, I see. Chomsky is not talking about linguistics and the social sciences, for example. When he talks of science, he's going back to Galileo and discusses mainly the development of physics. — Xtrix
Basic confusion: hypothesis can be speculation, but what differentiates it from metaphysical speculation is that it can be proven through experience.Lots of things are speculative, until confirmed. Many hypotheses are speculative. — Xtrix
Don't you know what it's like to write a formula mathematically? Gee, you're really lost.Saying "mathematization" repeatedly is likewise vague and devoid of context. — Xtrix
— Xtrix
What Muhadhdhab Al-Deen Al-Baghdadi was doing was not experimentation, but observation. The experiment is something else, as you can see here:Al-Baghdadi — Xtrix
Experiments involve actively intervening in the course of nature, as opposed to observing events that would have happened anyway. When a molecular biologist inserts viral DNA into a bacterium in his laboratory, this is an experiment; but when an astronomer points his telescope at the heavens, this is an observation. Without the biologist’s handiwork the bacterium would never have contained foreign DNA; but the planets would have continued orbiting the sun whether or not the astronomer had directed his telescope skyward. The observational/experimental distinction would probably be difficult to make precise 1, as the notion of an ‘intervention’ is not easily defined, but it is intuitively fairly clear, and is frequently invoked by scientists and historians of science. Experimentation, or ‘putting questions to nature’, is often cited as a hallmark of the modern scientific method, something that permitted the enormous advances of the last 350 years. And it is sometimes said that the social sciences lag behind the natural because controlled experiments cannot be done so readily in the former. — Samir Okasha: Experiment, Observation and the Confirmation of Laws
So if Eratosthenes or Aristarchus weren't scientists or weren't "doing" science, and weren't performing experiments in the right way or the making the "right" observations, etc., because of some notion of "mathematicization" or whatever you like, then so be it. All that proves to me is that the notion of "science" has become completely useless -- even restricted to the "natural sciences." — Xtrix
What’s the difference? Rules may become public, but they never initialize publicly. — Mww
I've read about Chomsky in both linguistics and politics. If you go to this bibliography and to Chomsky's official website at MIT, you will see how these are the subjects of his work. I don't know that he has written an article on science and Galileo - a book, of course not - but if you have that reference I would like to know about it. — David Mo
And a word of advice: you should be careful about your risky claims about what your opponent has or has not read. The shot may hit you in your own foot. — David Mo
Basic confusion: hypothesis can be speculation, but what differentiates it from metaphysical speculation is that it can be proven through experience. — David Mo
Saying "mathematization" repeatedly is likewise vague and devoid of context.
— Xtrix
Don't you know what it's like to write a formula mathematically? — David Mo
What Muhadhdhab Al-Deen Al-Baghdadi was doing was not experimentation, but observation. — David Mo
The observational/experimental distinction would probably be difficult to make precise 1, as the notion of an ‘intervention’ is not easily defined, but it is intuitively fairly clear, and is frequently invoked by scientists — Samir Okasha: Experiment, Observation and the Confirmation of Laws
I am not giving you more details of the article because it is one of hundreds you can find on this subject in an academic search engine. — David Mo
You are attacking a vision of the scientific method that did not defend even its worst enemy: Willard Van Orman Quine. — David Mo
. It is absurd to pretend that all scientists "consciously" apply the scientific method. No one defends such a thing. — David Mo
If you can't offer something else, I'm afraid there's little to discuss here. — David Mo
You can apply the concept of science to whatever you want. You can apply it to the ritual dance of the geese in heat, if you like. As you expand it it will become more and more vague until it becomes meaningless. If you want you can put philosophy, science, alchemy, parapsychology and Donald Trump's twitters in the same bag. But that only serves to create confusion. — David Mo
For example, Putnam repeatedly speaks of philosophy and science as two different things. What is the basis for this difference? That's what's interesting. — David Mo
Philosophy is not religion
— Pfhorrest
Philosophy is not science
— Pfhorrest
See, here it's tricky in my view. On the one hand, of course philosophy isn't science or religion -- they differ in many ways. But on the other hand, they deal with very similar questions. — Xtrix
But like many things, we don't have a real rule or solid "definition" for determining which is which -- although we may feel like there's one. — Xtrix
And if you don't know exactly what Putnam is saying, why do you quote him? — David Mo
Your quote from Putnam is nothing more than a series of opinions poured out on a television show, which is not very interesting unless they are more reasoned. — David Mo
Chomsky is also a historian. — Xtrix
No. I'm excluding from science everything that can't be proven by controlled experience. Metaphysics is just another case. And that is not a matter of mere definition. It's a real difference between ways of knowing: it can be proven or not.All you're doing is defining anything that can't be "proven" as "metaphysical." — Xtrix
I'm also very impressed that you put his full name. — Xtrix
So you recognize that there is a clear difference between the method of science and that of philosophy? Case closed."Intuitively fairly clear." Sure, who would disagree? — Xtrix
Hey, didn't you say there was a clear difference between the scientific method of experimentation and observation? Now there is no difference?You still haven't shown there is a method. — Xtrix
One can speak in prose without knowing the difference between prose and poetry. . Moliére.So they apply this "method" how? Unconsciously? — Xtrix
But like I've said before, a major difference is that one is ontological, the other ontical. Here I agree with Heidegger. — Xtrix
That leaves us only in disagreement about the existence of a scientific method as being the distinguishing factor between philosophy and science. — Xtrix
Chomsky's not a historian. — David Mo
you had quoted him correctly you — David Mo
"Intuitively fairly clear." Sure, who would disagree?
— Xtrix
So you recognize that there is a clear difference between the method of science and that of philosophy? Case closed. — David Mo
You still haven't shown there is a method.
— Xtrix
Hey, didn't you say there was a clear difference between the scientific method of experimentation and observation? Now there is no difference? — David Mo
So they apply this "method" how? Unconsciously?
— Xtrix
One can speak in prose without knowing the difference between prose and poetry. . Moliére. — David Mo
The difference between ontical and ontological in Heidegger is as confusing as everything about him. I'd like to know how you understand it. — David Mo
If you have understood that, you will arrive at a clear difference between philosophy and science in terms of method: the use of controlled experimentation (or controlled observation in its absence) to test the validity of statements.
Not that the scientific method is reduced to that. But it is a first step. — David Mo
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.