I don't think that there's such a thing as an "anti-scientific movement". If you can provide some references ...anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science — Caldwell
Sorry, but it's not the philosophy's fault that there exist useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions. Just like in all schools of thought, or field of study, there's gonna be works that are useless, or unfounded. Don't blame philosophy, though.Many Naturalists Philosophers point out the epistemically and philosophically useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions that will always remain irrelevant to the rest body of knowledge and wisdom. — Nickolasgaspar
None of the above.Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned. — Alkis Piskas
So, if science is worthwhile and it seems to be, its decline even if can't be stalled/avoided, can one day be brought back to life, Jesus-like - the interim period would be chronicled as a second episode of the Dark Ages. — TheMadFool
-We don't find such types of publication in science...so its the fault of Academia for allowing "free inquiry" and unmonitored publications under its name.
We are talking about the publication of theoretical model based on epistemically failed principles like supernaturalism, theism or idealism — Nickolasgaspar
In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit — Tobias
You're not entertained? Occupied at least? Doesn't entertainment bring happiness or at least contentment? Doesn't this advance (or at least as you say bear fruit of evidence of the advancement of) the human condition and well being? Is this not the point of science? — Outlander
In what way then? :brow:Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned.
— Alkis Piskas
None of the above. — Caldwell
Aha! Didn't see that coming! I thought that yourself believed in the deacy of science!I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this insane sentiment that science will someday decay. — Caldwell
-Science is NOT decaying, neither as a method or an establishment or as a final product ( knowledge/theoretical frameworks). Being an institution within a corrupted economical system will always have its drawbacks but its self-correcting mechanism and monitoring of its peer view process and publications will protect the body of our epistemology from being polluted, something Philosophy can not do. — Nickolasgaspar
Like in the way of apparatus. I know. Members here don't like this word apparatus. Cause it sneaks, and before you know it, we're unknowing participants -- believing it's still science. lol. I don't know.In what way then? :brow: — Alkis Piskas
Not yet at least. We're in the exploratory mode.Aha! Didn't see that coming! I thought that yourself believed in the deacy of science! OK then, let others believe that! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
-Yes but philosophy's procedure is inadequate to keep bad philosophy away from its published material. — Nickolasgaspar
-No I am not going to absolute claims. I only state that the scientific establishment makes a far better job in monitor its peer review procedures by using far more strict rules and standards...that's all. — Nickolasgaspar
They have pointed out the intertwinement of politics and science, where politics is understood in a broad sense. The nfluence of epistemic communities, different schools of thought, the importance of aqcademic prestige and the influence of publication pressure on the rigour of the scientific process. We see that in action in the corona pandemic. The science is the same right, however every country chooses different paths and virologists from Sweden disagree with those from the Netherlands and both are held in high regard in the scientific community.-They have pointed what? — Nickolasgaspar
-We should always judge a procedure by its outcome and science has enjoyed a huge run away success on epistemology while Philosophy still deals with pseudo philosophical worldviews masquerading as valid principles behind many publications. — Nickolasgaspar
Philosophy SHOULD learn by the strict evaluation standards of science and show equal respect to the rules of logic. — Nickolasgaspar
We should listen to Philosophers like Hoyningen and Bunge that point out the problems in the current Philosophical procedure. — Nickolasgaspar
-"Well, I do not read bad philosophical articles."
-You may not, but many do. Metaphysics specifically suffer by bad non naturalistic speculative frameworks from philosophers and scientists who find a way to publish their ideas outside the difficult "audience" of science.
-"Why do you think academia is flooded by bad philosophy?"
-Again its not my personal thought. Its a fact that many philosophers point out.IF you subscribe to Academia.edu you will receive all kind of "news letters" on new publications spanning from "the role of intuition"(while Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel in Economics by exposing intuition's untrustworthy nature as a heuristic) to papers about the " improper implications of an improper undertanding of genesis 1-1 and arguments on Ockham's razor simplicity(when its all about necessity).
-" It is also a tough proposition to test because there is less of an agreed upon method in philosophy than in the natural sciences."
-Not really , because its not about the method, even if Aristotle has defined the philosophical method almost ~2200 years ago. Its about epistemically failed and unfounded non naturalistic presumptions that people use to guide their interpretations.
Science has far more high numbers in its methodological approaches but the Principles(Methodological Naturalism) and standard of Evaluation are all the same. i.e. Sting Theory may not meet those standards(Objectivity, independent verification, falsifiability etc) but the principles behind its conclusions are naturalistic, in agreement with the current scientific paradigm and there are ideas on how to be tested with possible future technologies.
-"The problem is that you use similar criteria to judge the two enterprises, I think that is not productive. Studying the natural world is a different enterprise from studying the social world, let alone question our deep seated assumptions."
-This is what I argue. This is the reason why Philosophy only has a handful of major advances to display while Science as a philosophical category is enjoying a long lasting run away success in epistemology.
This is the main reason why most people still lose their time with pseudo philosophical principles .
Well we also have social sciences studying the "social world" but you don't see they using theology or idealism or supernaturalism to produce knowledge or wise claims on what we try to explain or solve.
Again the problem rises because of that Special Pleading you mention. The standards of logic and evaluation plus our principles SHOULD be the same for ALL our intellectual endeavors.
Sure Philosophy tackles a far wider spectrum of questions but that should not let it off the hook from obeying logic, verified epistemology and epistemically successful principles and presuppositions.
That is a common misconception many people hold about Philosophy. For some weird reason, the rules , criteria and principles of Logic shouldn't apply on our Philosophical inquiries. Verified knowledge can be ignore for the shake of people presumptions and Objectivity and evidence based evaluations are viewed as unnecessary in our conclusions.
All those attempts to free our thinking from the rules of logic and credible methods of evaluation are responsible for the see of pseudo philosophy that floods our philosophy daily.
-"They have pointed out the intertwinement of politics and science, where politics is understood in a broad sense. The nfluence of epistemic communities, different schools of thought, the importance of aqcademic prestige and the influence of publication pressure on the rigour of the scientific process. We see that in action in the corona pandemic. The science is the same right, however every country chooses different paths and virologists from Sweden disagree with those from the Netherlands and both are held in high regard in the scientific community."
-All those are true...but again in order to prove that those affect our body of epistemology you will need to point out cases where pseudo science has been accepted as scientific knowledge for respectful period.
You will not find any due to science's self correcting mechanism that philosophy doesn't have.
Independent verification is needed for any claim to be remain as part of our epistemology so any attempt to sneak in an idea (cold fusion,Sheldreak's woo) all fall short in the long run.
-"I do not know which journals you read... I do not see philosophy dealing with an outdated metaphysics."
-You need to investigate it. Try subscribing to some of them.
-"This result oriented view is actually exactly what might be criticized. You say "we should always judge a procedure by its outcomes" but whether we in fact should is a philosophical quetion not a scientific one. "
-Actually this is a criterion we use to identify pseudo philosophy..."philosophical" conclusions that insist in using epistemically failed principles or outdated knowledge in their interpretations.
So of course we should judge a philosophy when it doesn't offer WISE claims about our world. When the claims are for "other worlds or dimensions" the we are dealing with religious claims, not philosophical ideas that can assist us in understanding this world.
-"Good god, the screaming is hurting my ears. Luckily you do not get to decide what philosophers should do no matter how hard you wag your fist and how many capital letters you use. Of course learning can never harm, but you seem to buy into the iddea that there is one sort of criterion according to which every endeavour should be judged. It is an open question whether there is such a criterion."
-So IMHO you are part of the problem. There is not an open question about it. Its something that Bunge and Hoyningen and Richard Carrier and many others have being pointing out and it is something that can be verified by the results. ITs the reason why many scientists accuse Philosophy for not contributing to our advances...while they are doing philosophy to conclude to that position.
So Philosophy is not the problem here but how people tend to do philosophy!
-"Or we shpuld read people like Latour, Daston and Beck who take a sociological approach to science. That way science learns something about itself and that in the end is I think the goal of philosophy. It is a hermenutic endeavour and not as you seem to think a descriptive one."
-That is an irrelevant aspect that has nothing to do with the main problem of Philosophy. You are arguing about a completely different topic. Nothing of what I say keeps us from doing philosophy of science. And again... any hermenutic endeavour should be interpreted by the same standards and principles. — Tobias
-You may not, but many do. Metaphysics specifically suffer by bad non naturalistic speculative frameworks from philosophers and scientists who find a way to publish their ideas outside the difficult "audience" of science. — Tobias
-Again its not my personal thought. Its a fact that many philosophers point out.IF you subscribe to Academia.edu you will receive all kind of "news letters" on new publications spanning from "the role of intuition"(while Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel in Economics by exposing intuition's untrustworthy nature as a heuristic) to papers about the " improper implications of an improper undertanding of genesis 1-1 and arguments on Ockham's razor simplicity(when its all about necessity). — Tobias
This is what I argue. This is the reason why Philosophy only has a handful of major advances to display while Science as a philosophical category is enjoying a long lasting run away success in epistemology. — Tobias
-All those are true...but again in order to prove that those affect our body of epistemology you will need to point out cases where pseudo science has been accepted as scientific knowledge for respectful period. — Tobias
So of course we should judge a philosophy when it doesn't offer WISE claims about our world. When the claims are for "other worlds or dimensions" the we are dealing with religious claims, not philosophical ideas that can assist us in understanding this world. — Tobias
-So IMHO you are part of the problem. There is not an open question about it. Its something that Bunge and Hoyningen and Richard Carrier and many others have being pointing out and it is something that can be verified by the results. ITs the reason why many scientists accuse Philosophy for not contributing to our advances...while they are doing philosophy to conclude to that position.
So Philosophy is not the problem here but how people tend to do philosophy! — Tobias
-That is an irrelevant aspect that has nothing to do with the main problem of Philosophy. You are arguing about a completely different topic. Nothing of what I say keeps us from doing philosophy of science. And again... any hermenutic endeavour should be interpreted by the same standards and principles. — Tobias
We have Consequentialism the main philosophical principle behind Secular Morality and our ability to produce objective moral evaluations, but we still have "philosophers" arguing and publishing papers on Divine or Absolute Morality (vs. authoritarianism / absolutism). — Nickolasgaspar
We have Evidentialism and Objectivism still giving a fight against mysticism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, a priori facts, faith. (I see disagreement falling in this category) — Nickolasgaspar
We have real life Political( and economics) Ideas ignoring Human rights and well being. ( exploiting humans as a mean to an end... for backing up a specific social organization system and meeting economic markers). — Nickolasgaspar
We have Naturalism still fighting against the epistemically failed principles of Idealism and Supernaturalism....and of course the pseudo idea of "free will" justifying unscientific social practices. — Nickolasgaspar
Great explanation! :grin:Like in the way of apparatus.
— Caldwell
Science decaying in the way an apparatus is decaying? :confused:
— Alkis Piskas
Er, no. — Caldwell
They manage to rather well. I get your point: scientific methodologies/epistemology cannot decay. But here on earth what gets called science can decay, and money is effectively doing that. Given the increase in wealth at the top and decrease in the number of media companies (that reach significant numbers), I am not seeing an easy way for us to break free from this.Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science, — Nickolasgaspar
And yes, I was referring to economic and then political practices allowing them to present, for example, poor methodolgies and research practices as science. And then effectively paint critics, including scientists, as against science through media that they have much more contol over as a mouthpiece. The specific epistemologies they present are often highlighted by critics and part of their criticisms, but since these are hard for the general public to follow, and even other scientists conflate corporate sponsered research as following The Set of Methodologies and Standards of Theoretical evaluations AND who assume that 'of course' regulatory bodies including scientists would not allow terrible epistemologies (demonstrated in specific examples of poorly done research that supports positions corporations want) to be approvedDoes that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science,, no they can not.
Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science, no they can not.
Science as a method can't be affected or decay. — Nickolasgaspar
And yes, I was referring to economic and then political practices allowing them to present, for example, poor methodolgies and research practices as science. And then effectively paint critics, including scientists, as against science through media that they have much more contol over as a mouthpiece. — Bylaw
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.