science & technology have saved us...I'd love to hear how philosophy could contribute to that. — TaySan

Whether or not technology has saved us is open to debate, but we'll leave that for now. Science by itself doesn't help anyone. It has to be turned into technology by engineering. Engineering is applied science.

And science is applied philosophy.

Philosophy has enriched my inner world. I think that's true of anyone that puts any thought into the subject.

All the advances of the industrial revolution, a direct outcome of advances in philosophy, have meant that there are now a lot more people on Earth. Population grows exponentially. And that appears to mean that exponentially more people will suffer.

I'd go into this at more length, by it's almost my time for the drive through window at McDonald's, and I need to order the Unibomber manifesto in hardcopy because my Kindle hurts my eyes and I've ground too much Cheeto dust into the screen.

One year into the pandemic, it's safe to say that science & technology have saved us. — TaySan

Eh? What on earth makes you think this pandemic and its reverberations are over??

Your missing the point. We didn't go from cavemen bashing each other over the head for food, shelter, love, and even just for fun to interconnected societies, microchips and thermonuclear fusion.

Life is like a boulder perched over the edge. Philosophy is kind of like gravity and science is like the person who pushes the rock over the edge and claims all the credit.

Life is like a boulder perched over the edge. Philosophy is kind of like gravity and science is like the person who pushes the rock over the edge and claims all the credit. — Outlander

An....odd simile. By which I mean I don't know what you're trying to say.

It was a poor one, I agree. Still, two states of being, allegedly. The first I described (cavemen-esque days) and today (microchips, spaceships, and everything in between). Eventually.. the idea that someone didn't have to start thinking, and critically becomes essentially on par with anything else that today is a "commitable" offense ie. violence, threats of violence, etc.

The only counter-argument is that I'm incorrectly equating "basic thinking" with advanced philosophy. Which is defensible.

Saved us from doom scenarios like the Spanish Flu and the Bubonic Plague. Compared to those, the amounts of death and suffering have been minimal. — TaySan

Within the next 4 weeks , 600,000 people will have died in the U.S. in the 12 month span since the pandemic began, which will tie the total estimated number of fatalities in the U.S from the Spanish Flu. It took two years to reach that milestone 110 years ago, but Covid accomplished that feat in half the time. To put that number in perspective, here are the leading causes of death in the U.S. in 2019:


Heart disease: 659,041
Cancer: 599,601
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005
Alzheimer’s disease: 121,499
Diabetes: 87,647
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,565
Influenza and pneumonia: 49,783
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,511


Do you still think number of fatalities from Covid is 'minimal' compared to the Spanish Flu.?

science & technology have saved us. I'd love to hear how philosophy could contribute to that. — TaySan

As a previous poster noted, you just heard it from your own mouth(keyboard), since all scientific theories are elaborations of philosophical systems.

And yes, I'd love to hear how philosophy could contribute to that. — TaySan

If you're advocating for or against science, you're doing philosophy. If science is the right way to do something, philosophy can contribute by arguing successfully that science is the right way to do that.

And if there are other things that science isn't the right way to do, or that science isn't even in the business of doing -- e.g. a lot of our problems are social, essentially ethical ones, not questions of what is or how to do something, but of what should be or why to do something -- then philosophy can contribute in that respect by arguing successfully for whatever the right way to do that is.

I didn't mean the pandemic is over. I mean that we're still in it and that the situation is not that bad

And science is applied philosophy. — T Clark

Interesting. I have to get back to you on this one

This is an answer that I can appreciate. Thank you :)

All the advances of the industrial revolution, a direct outcome of advances in philosophy — Count Timothy von Icarus

How are the advances of the industrial revolution a direct outcome of advances in philosophy then?

Life is like a boulder perched over the edge. Philosophy is kind of like gravity and science is like the person who pushes the rock over the edge and claims all the credit — Outlander

This is gold. I don't know what to say. Touché

I don't agree with the idea that all scientific theories are elaborations of philosophical systems. Simply because a lot theories are based on evidence.

I do take covid more seriously, perhaps the approach in the EU is not the right one.

You're welcome.

Do you still think number of fatalities from Covid is 'minimal' compared to the Spanish Flu.? — Joshs

Do you still think number of fatalities from Covid is 'minimal' compared to the Spanish Flu.? — Joshs

I think they were minimal by comparison. The vast majority of mortalities from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are from people with comorbidities, and the elderly, so the numbers are almost entirely unknown.

Invasive treatment from respirators is highly dangerous and would have compounded the fatalities.

Obesity and other factors come into play, which is far worse of a problem nowadays, further putting the numbers into disrepute. Respiratory illnesses are compounded by a poor diet with a lack of fresh raw vegetables to oxygenate the blood. Immune systems are generally weaker than in the 1920's due to unhealthy lifestyles.

Psychological effects of prolonged isolation, lack of care, lack of access to cancer treatments, increased suicides etc. further muddies the waters for true numbers.

Although there is the claim that technology nowadays would improve the situation, this does not appear to be the case. It was clear early on that zinc supplementation would have greatly reduced deaths, but because of modern day political interest from shareholder run bio tech companies, simple mitigation strategies like this were not implemented. A good diet was not promoted by health organizations.

Since the Spanish flu hit young people very hard, there would be far less comorbidities involved. In other words, the Spanish flu was the only culprit in most cases.

In 1920, there were far less people to infect. The global population was under 2 billion.

To my knowledge, the Spanish flu was less contagious, but don't quote me on that, not sure. If that is the case, then the overall fatality rate for the Spanish flu was surely vastly higher in that it would have infected less people for the given number of fatalities.

Also, there was far less contagion spread possible in 1920, given that the world was less open to mass transit and almost unfettered movement of goods and people.

You cannot really compare 1920 to 2020. Different world, political landscape, technology level etc.

If humans in 2021 cannot handle a virus like SARS-Cov19, they will have no chance with something the equivalent of the Spanish flu. It would crush what's left of an already weak and crumbling civilization. What would people eat if supply chains completely broke down from something like the Spanish flu? Most people are entirely dependent on supply chains, which was not the case in the 20's .

Nations and people were far more resilient in the 20's. The current state of affairs is best described as pitiful. And the response to it is even more worrying!

UV light increases your levels of vitamin D, and people are not encouraged to be outside.
In the 1920's I think people had the basic wisdom to know that people were already poor after World War I, and compounding these troubles on an economy with destruction of a way of life would not help. They were at least wise enough to understand what you don't do!
which is not to make a bad situation much much worse.

The accusation would be meaningful only if it were true that philosophy - its core lessons - were as commonplace as the TV - to be found, without exception, in every home save in the huts and shacks of the poorest of the poor. It's ironic that this is the way things are because I recall watching what is probably a TV series that TV and its ilk are the modern version of Plato's cave.

To my knowledge, the Spanish flu was less contagious, but don't quote me on that, not sure. — Paul S

A Spanish here. Fun and interesting fact: it was the called the Spanish flu due to the neutrality of Spain in WWI. It was the only European country speaking about it in press without censure. Some people say it was so contagious that probably died around 20 - 40 million of humans. But as you said it was so difficult to record it back in 1918.

The vast majority of mortalities from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are from people with comorbidities, and the elderly, so the numbers are almost entirely unknown. — Paul S

Don’t you think a pretty good indicator of how many died due to Covid , who would not otherwise have died , is by looking at the average overall number of deaths from all causes on a yearly basis ( say over the past 10 years) and comparing it to the number of deaths from all causes in the past 12 months? I recognize that the number of deaths from all causes fluctuates from year to year, but it does so within a range, and I’m betting that range is on the order of only 10’s of thousands. If in the U.S. there has been anywhere near 600,000 more deaths than would be expected in an average year , then it simply would not be true that “the numbers are almost entirely unknown.” In fact, the opposite would be the case. The numbers , give or take a certain percentage, are clearly demonstrable. The fact that these deaths are among a vulnerable population is irrelevant. Those people would not have died if not for Covid.

https://www.cbs19.tv/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify-comparing-total-deaths-from-2020-to-2019-and-2018/501-355b857c-e7e9-40e4-b31d-11500cbcb103

Simply because a lot theories are based on evidence. — TaySan

By definition, scientific theories are based on evidence. And what counts as evidence is based on a pre-existing framework defining what counts as evidence. And this paradigmatic framework is of the order of a philosophical system.

:grin:

I guess I would instead say philosophy has done what science has yet to do. That something being giving meaning, purpose, and direction into an otherwise meaningless, purposeless, and chaotic existence. I mean, sure science lets us better arrange and understand the chaos and create/discover new chaotic systems to reign in however the more we uncover and master the less human and in control we feel. Philosophy offers a modest yet effective solution for the human condition.

So the question is: Would you rather feel at home or live in a place you know is scientifically "better" than where you did last?

Are you talking a better world for people in general or a better world for you, in particular?

Philosophy is a way of looking at things and if you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change,

Even though your cherished philosophy may differ from mine, it’s never been about whom is right or wrong, it’s always been and always will be about the true nature of things.

which accusation exactly are you referring to?

hmm interesting. I was brought up with the idea that philosophy is about having a satisfactory experience between all interlocutors. One day at the dinner table my Dad promptly stated: "From now on I want to discuss important matters with you." I guess I've always been more into it than my Mom and my two younger siblings though.

I was talking about a better world for all life on Earth.

Yes, that was true back in the days. But I argue that with inventions such as the microscope and telescope, the role of philosophy has been pushed into the background. Where are the philosophical innovations of the 21st century?

I'm a bit confused. I need a moment to think about this.

And if there are other things that science isn't the right way to do, or that science isn't even in the business of doing -- e.g. a lot of our problems are social, essentially ethical ones, not questions of what is or how to do something, but of what should be or why to do something -- then philosophy can contribute in that respect by arguing successfully for whatever the right way to do that is. — Pfhorrest

It's interesting to see that the social sciences like sociology and psychology are still not entirely being taken seriously. But you've given very solid reasons pro philosophy and therefore I concede. You've won our debate. :)

which accusation exactly are you referring to? — TaySan

No accusations were made...I was spewing nonsense.

Let's discuss "philosophy has failed to create a better world"

First off, science is a rather ungrateful child of philosophy. I just got a call from my mother and something clicked. If some scientists are to be believed philosophy is now either obsolete or if not has no business in scientific affairs. It appears that the child (science) would like nothing better than cut itself loose from its parent (philosophy) and take all the credit for stuff like being the mitigating force in the current global pandemic without mentioning, even in passing, its origins in philosophy. What do you make of that?

Well, I won't go all Freud on you :D.

What I know from scientists I've spoken to is that they generally don't give any credit to anyone except for themselves. Unless they're forced to. Apparently it's a highly competitive business.

When it comes to the pandemic I feel that the philosophers are being left out of the debate. Simply because the politicians are making the rules and they have no interest in arguing with people more educated than them.