-I am aware of this outdated Normative approach — Nickolasgaspar

So you don't know what normative means, either. Great...

Normative refers to norms or ethics. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything to do with Kuhn. What I'm talking about is ontology. Look it up.

science's success — Nickolasgaspar

Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs — Nickolasgaspar

:lol:

How cute.

Yes, certainly what's impressive about science is its "success." That's definitely not a value judgment, I suppose. Having an iPhone must be an "Objective good." lol

For goodness shake, he denies Objectivism, one of the major breakthroughs of Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

Ayn Rand dogmatists are funny.

-As I said before I am aware of this critique based on Normative guidelines, but their authors have failed to explain the run away success of science. — Nickolasgaspar

Imagine being so full of yourself that you can't even admit that you don't have the slightest clue what these authors' theses were.

How utterly pathetic.

Factually AND "fractally"! Damn...guess we all can't pretend to be geniuses. — Xtrix

- you do your best mate.!

You're right to bow out of this conversation with your tail between your legs. — Xtrix

oh this is your goal.......ok, that explains your outdated beliefs.

[quote=" good job saving face with the "You're not worth it" line. Superb! A real course in ego protection[/quote]
-its an accurate description mate!

Normative critique has failed to explain the epistemic success of science and Descriptive Science explains why Normative "rules" offer nothing of value in our methodologies and standards of evidence. — Nickolasgaspar

"epistemic success" is a value judgement, if it's even coherent. No one here is making normative claims other than you.

"Descriptive Science" is meaningless as well. Do you mean descriptive RESEARCH?

You're honestly so poor of a writer that it's embarrassing.

What works of theirs are you referring? Care to cite some passages? Because you've definitely read them, of course.
— Xtrix
I am sure that I have posted you links ...don't you read my comments or are you preoccupied preparing your apologetic? — Nickolasgaspar

You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited.

Try to follow along with the discussion.

Paul Hoyningen — Nickolasgaspar

I never once mentioned this guy. I asked about the authors cited above -- not about Hoyningen.

So you don't know what normative means, either. Great...

Normative refers to norms or ethics. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything to do with Kuhn. What I'm talking about is ontology. Look it up. — Xtrix

-You do know that you can google a phrase you ignore...before removing any doubt for your ignorance from your interlocutor....right?
You can use your internet connection to educate yourself...its not just for social media and spicy pictures.....

Yes, certainly what's impressive about science is its "success." That's definitely not a value judgment, I suppose. Having an iPhone must be an "Objective good." lol — Xtrix

-You are confusing commercial applications with the knowledge that enables technical applications......

-"Ayn Rand dogmatists are funny."
-Chronicling is blocking your ability to learn or think....

Imagine being so full of yourself that you can't even admit that you don't have the slightest clue what these authors' theses were. — Xtrix

-Sorry mate but you are unable to point to a critique by those fellows that will be left standing after I have some time with it.
Your objections are based on rejecting facts like the objective nature of Scientific frameworks , the evidence and methods used to arrive to them.
You have nothing to offer mate.
You are done and you don't know it.

-"How utterly pathetic. "
-Self critique is always welcome...

Descriptive Science" is meaningless as well. Do you mean descriptive RESEARCH? — Xtrix

-lol...seriously...you don't know how google search works? the first in random...here you are.Don't make me work for your education..its your responsibility mate.
https://sciencing.com/normative-descriptive-science-8763863.html

You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited. — Xtrix

You haven't posted a single link or passage about Hoyningen's critique on Kuhn or others....
Would a astronomer have any reason to argue against disprove frameworks about the solar system? lol
Ok we get it, you happen to learn about Kuhn's ideas and you thought that its a great excuse to reject objectivity and facts...
Nice to know mate....you are not alone who cherry picks and special pleads.....

You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited — Xtrix

So i have to quote philosophical shenanigans of people who were trying to keep academic philosophy relevant(and they justify their paycheck) through arguments from ignorance fallacies!!!!
Great demand!

-"Ayn Rand dogmatists are funny."
-Chronicling is blocking your ability to learn or think.... — Nickolasgaspar

Says the Ayn Rand follower. lol.

So you don't know what normative means, either. Great...

Normative refers to norms or ethics. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything to do with Kuhn. What I'm talking about is ontology. Look it up.
— Xtrix

-You do know that you can google a phrase you ignore...before removing any doubt for your ignorance from your interlocutor....right?
You can use your internet connection to educate yourself...its not just for social media and spicy pictures..... — Nickolasgaspar

So you don't know what normative means. Got it.

Yes, certainly what's impressive about science is its "success." That's definitely not a value judgment, I suppose. Having an iPhone must be an "Objective good." lol
— Xtrix
-You are confusing commercial applications with the knowledge that enables technical applications...... — Nickolasgaspar

You realize I can scroll back and see what you said, right? Like:

understand what is responsible for science's success not what science should do in order for to meet specific criteria.
Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs by using a technology designed to manipulate hidden properties of matter.... — Nickolasgaspar

Good God you're embarrassing.

-Sorry mate but you are unable to point to a critique by those fellows that will be left standing after I have some time with it. — Nickolasgaspar

Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to?

I won't hold my breath for an answer, since you've never read a word of their work. But I realize your ego won't allow you to admit this. And say "normative critique" and wave your hands. Typical of Ayn Rand enthusiasts.

You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited.
— Xtrix
You haven't posted a single link or passage about Hoyningen's critique on Kuhn or others.... — Nickolasgaspar

Because I haven't once claimed, like you have with the authors mentioned, to be familiar with Hoyningen.

You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see.

Would a astronomer have any reason to argue against disprove frameworks about the solar system? lol
Ok we get it, you happen to learn about Kuhn's ideas and you thought that its a great excuse to reject objectivity and facts... — Nickolasgaspar

So Kuhn's work -- which you've never read and have no clue about -- is equivalent to a geocentric framework.

I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is?

I'll continue not to hold my breath. Keep evading, by all means.



Well you claim to be familiar with them -- because you're a liar. So it's only right to ask for what exactly you find wrong with their arguments.

But since you have no clue about their arguments, you instead are desperately trying to save face by sad attempts at vague generalities.

Again, the authors were: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Joseph Rouse. Keep pretending to be an expert on things you have no clue about. Your bullshit doesn't work here, and can be smelled a mile away.

"Bohr's analysis is wrong...he's way too normative!" See? How easy it is! Brilliant.

Nick isn't having a conversation. He is running a PR campaign.

Says the Ayn Rand follower. lol. — Xtrix

mentioning Rand's name ...is not an argument against the epistemic success of objective methodologies.....sorry if you are unable to put together a non fallacious argument against objectivity.
(and you can't distinguish the definition of "object" from "objectivity").

So you don't know what normative means. Got it. — Xtrix

lol...I see you skipped quoting the link I provided you on Normative and Descriptive Science!
Honest discussions are not your A game right?

You realize I can scroll back and see what you said, right? Like:

understand what is responsible for science's success not what science should do in order for to meet specific criteria.
Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs by using a technology designed to manipulate hidden properties of matter.... — Xtrix

-Yes and you understand that an ad absurdum about iphones doesn't change the fact that technical applications of knowledge enables commercial applications. Iphones is not the proof that Knowledge produced by Science has an objective value. Any company can use science's knowledge on matter to produce goods...not just apple. Commercial application is the symptom of objectivity in scientific knowledge...not the cause or proof....
That was a fallacious argument ..just admit it.

Good God you're embarrassing. — Xtrix

Self critique is a good think...keep it up.

Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to?

I won't hold my breath for an answer, since you've never read a word of their work. But I realize your ego won't allow you to admit this. And say "normative critique" and wave your hands. Typical of Ayn Rand enthusiasts. — Xtrix

-I don't find any claim relevant or capable to challenge the ability of science to feed an objective epistemology.
Again its your burden to deconstruct the epistemic status of science by offering the ultimate argument (according to you). hit us!
Btw you are confusing scientific objectivity with Rand's philosophy on objectivism...Logic offers this criterion to Science...not Rand's views....

Because I haven't once claimed, like you have with the authors mentioned, to be familiar with Hoyningen. — Xtrix

lol ..ok childish arguments. Dude science has a work to show something that its critics can not! Whether you agree or not on which principles are responsible for science's epistemic success...its your job to argue in favor or against them...not mine.

You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see. — Xtrix

I reject their objections because science has prove that they are irrelevant to its methods abilities to provide descriptive generalizations....again you need to learn how the burden of proof works.
I won't waste my time with a magical thinker writing long lines for text ....to see you tap dancing like you did with the link on normative and descriptive science....
I will be happy to talk to a bystander who appears to be honest and interested in challenging his "theology".

So Kuhn's work -- which you've never read and have no clue about -- is equivalent to a geocentric framework. — Xtrix

lol metaphors is not your strong point...right?

I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is? — Xtrix

-again its your job to point out which of Kuhn's arguments qualify, in your opinion,as the best challenge against the epistemic and instrumental value of science mate...you need to do the hard work here.
Well...in order to make you stop whining I will throw you some crumbs
there are ideas of his that agree with (i.e.why scientific knowledge doesn't share characteristics of revolution) but his critique on scientific truth is a huge strawman. Science deals with knowledge...not absolute knowledge or truth.
If you are able to understand this basic difference you will also be able to understand why his arguments address Normative science...not Descriptive science (the one responsible for our epistemic success).

Well you claim to be familiar with them -- because you're a liar. So it's only right to ask for what exactly you find wrong with their arguments. — Xtrix

-and how can you objectively prove this belief of yours? Does my reluctance to not waste time on factually wrong critique proves that I am not familiar with it? Fallacies are not your strong point...right?

Again, the authors were: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Joseph Rouse. Keep pretending to be an expert on things you have no clue about. Your bullshit doesn't work here, and can be smelled a mile away. — Xtrix

-Argument from false authority fallacy since they argue in favor of a Normative approach in science... plus the facts and critique render their objections irrelevant. Science delivers independently of what Philosophers what to believe.
Philosophy has being shrinking for ages. Science has been claiming most of the fields of inquiry so it is natural to have philosophers kicking back in order to make their occupation relevant....

"Bohr's analysis is wrong...he's way too normative!" See? How easy it is! Brilliant. — Xtrix

I guess you don't really grasp the concepts.
How old are you mate?
Did you go to college?

Given the word philosophy is in the very title of this forum, it seems like a fairly straightforward question, "What is philosophy?"

The term itself, as we know, means "love of wisdom" from the Greek. But that doesn't help much until we know what "wisdom" means.

Interested in hearing various interpretations. — Xtrix

Only one definition survives: Philosophy is the examination of the the world at the level of the most basic questions. Science is, of course, NOT philosophy. It is pre-philosophical.

Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to? — Xtrix

No response.

You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see.
— Xtrix
I reject their objections — Nickolasgaspar

What objections? What exactly are their “objections” that you refer to? Since you’re lying, and have no clue what they argue, they could be in full agreement with you. But again, you wouldn’t know — because you’re a liar, and haven’t read a word of their work.

I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is?
— Xtrix
-again its your job to point out which of Kuhn's arguments qualify, — Nickolasgaspar

you need to do the hard work here. — Nickolasgaspar

:lol:

After a Google search:

there are ideas of his that agree with (i.e.why scientific knowledge doesn't share characteristics of revolution) — Nickolasgaspar

That’s not Kuhn’s argument. Keep trying.

I notice not one reference to a work or one passage cited. Hmm…I guess that’s too “hard.”

Next time, don’t claim to be familiar with authors you’ve never heard of. Understand?

Does my reluctance to not waste time on factually wrong critique proves that I am not familiar with it? — Nickolasgaspar

No — failing to know what those “critiques” are does.

What work of Kuhn have you read? Not hard work — just give a title. Go Google it if you need to.

I’ll skip the rest. I’ve already given this lying bullshitter too much of my time.

Go read more Ayn Rand.

Nick isn't having a conversation. He is running a PR campaign. — Yohan

For Ayn Rand and his own bloated sense of self.

Garrett Travers was more fun — Joshs

Yeah…may even be the same person. Who knows.

Science is, of course, NOT philosophy. It is pre-philosophical. — Constance

This depends on whether we want to define them as entirely different. I look at it as a spectrum. The difference between natural philosophy and science isn’t always clear.

Science rests — like everything else — on an ontology (namely, naturalism/materialism). Ontology is usually considered philosophy. The idea of “nature,” causality, time, and being all have philosophical underpinnings in science.

lol as I thought...I just tossed you some crumbles and you behaved as expected. Imagine losing my time explaining why he isn't against objectivity in science or why he isn't again falsifiability or why his objection on non fitting facts are part of the quasi dogmatic paradigm of science ......bla bla bal.
its like interacting with a 7yo...
Apochavnosism in all its glory.

I will reestablish radio silence on chronicling and enjoy your ignorance on what Science is...

what work have you read of Hoyningen and Hakob Barseghyan

Sorry, I don’t interact seriously with liars.

The Fountainhead is calling you.

Sorry, I don’t interact seriously with liars. — Xtrix

-so how do you live with yourself????
Again, educate yourself! Objectivity is not dismissed just because you come up with some outdated critique of the past century that you don't quite understand.
I can give you homework if you like....
Try not to mix pseudo philosophy with Philosophy mate.
cheers.

:yawn:

Liar says what?

stop talking about yourself...and make some proper arguments! Why are you a science denier?

This depends on whether we want to define them as entirely different. I look at it as a spectrum. The difference between natural philosophy and science isn’t always clear.

Science rests — like everything else — on an ontology (namely, naturalism/materialism). Ontology is usually considered philosophy. The idea of “nature,” causality, time, and being all have philosophical underpinnings in science. — Xtrix

Ah yes, the ontology of knitting. I've heard of it. I have also heard the paradigmatic shift in the art of knitting and the deconstruction of knitting in a very revealing gender analysis. The term 'ontology' has been made into a catchphrase for any and all scholarly work. A little silly, but useful I suppose if you're giving things a close look.
But philosophy is not an empirical approach. It takes empirical approaches and theorizes about their presuppositions, and in this is apriori, like what Kant did with reason looking at judgment and thought and asking what has to be there in order for judgment to be possible.
Philosophy is the "science" of presuppositions.

Ah yes, the ontology of knitting. — Constance

This did give me a chuckle.

But philosophy is not an empirical approach. — Constance

True— not now, anyway. But remember, science comes out of natural philosophy, and is not without its ontological foundations. Once we acknowledge that, clear demarcations begin to get blurred.

Screw it, I'll go radical: In general the tradition of philosophy is to be the Mother of the sciences, but current philosophy is, by and large, the study of mysteries.

We still are debating a huge swath of traditional questions in which we have not managed to advance one iota. What is the self, how can matter think, what is mind, what's the good, is there only one thing in the universe, do we have free will, etc.

Sometimes we get lucky and manage to bring some of the classic philosophical questions into the arena of empirical research, and then we get a science.

True— not now, anyway. But remember, science comes out of natural philosophy, and is not without its ontological foundations. Once we acknowledge that, clear demarcations begin to get blurred. — Xtrix

Depends on what you read. Go back to a time when the world was not cluttered with new categories, and one could observe without the presumption of knowing. Science did not so much "come out of natural philosophy" as it took what was "natural" and categorized it. What is left is religion: the narrative driven unobservable world that defies categorical thinking. It is the "openness" of our existence in all knowledge claims. The essence of religion, minus the narratives and the popular institutions, is just this openness; and the openness of ethics is front and center.

Screw it, I'll go radical: In general the tradition of philosophy is to be the Mother of the sciences, but current philosophy is, by and large, the study of mysteries.

We still are debating a huge swath of traditional questions in which we have not managed to advance one iota. What is the self, how can matter think, what is mind, what's the good, is there only one thing in the universe, do we have free will, etc.

Sometimes we get lucky and manage to bring some of the classic philosophical questions into the arena of empirical research, and then we get a science. — Manuel

Except that much of familiar philosophy doesn't "study" mysteries; it ignores them. Religion presents a metaphysics that is, in most of its content, nonsense, and it loses its authority because of this. Then, in rejecting religion and its nonsense, we end up rejecting the entirety of foundational talk about what it is to be a person in the world. This is understandable since the "authentic" issues of religion are unclear in their meaning, and we do like things clear.

But to take this need for clarity to the threshold of inquiry, that is, existential mystery, is just perverse. This mystery is what we, well, "really are", given that what a thing really is, is defined by its final definition, after thought and questions have cleared the way. We are, at the deepest level of inquiry, completely mysterious to ourselves.

I think the topics I listed are a mystery and are studied (or discussed and elaborated) and we still debate them, with no resolution on the horizon.

Religion is very complex and I would probably say that it's even impoverished by the Western entanglement with Christianity, which, compared to other religions, is pretty boring. At least to me.

But existence can be looked at through many lenses, not limited to religion.

I think the topics I listed are a mystery and are studied (or discussed and elaborated) and we still debate them, with no resolution on the horizon.

Religion is very complex and I would probably say that it's even impoverished by the Western entanglement with Christianity, which, compared to other religions, is pretty boring. At least to me.

But existence can be looked at through many lenses, not limited to religion. — Manuel

What is the self, how can matter think, what is mind, what's the good, is there only one thing in the universe, do we have free will, etc. — Manuel

Religion looked at as complex and impoverished IS worse than boring; it is dangerous and trivializing, popular religions and their texts. But once the tedious "theology" and politics is removed, what is left is what you called a "study of mysteries." Not so much a "study" by science, and philosophy, in this neck of the woods anyway, is no more than speculative science, and mystery is simply unwelcome.

What is the self? you ask. A good question. Science has nothing to offer here and popular religions are too filled with bad metaphysics. Where does one go? Existence? Same.

That's fine. Where does one go? Depends on each person, I personally like descriptive generalization that make sense to me, that can help elucidate what I experience, obviously inadequately, but it's an approximation.

Others will deny that the self is a problem at all.

Some think science offers all answers.

Some become mystics.

Science did not so much "come out of natural philosophy" as it took what was "natural" and categorized it. — Constance

I don’t see the difference.

Science seeks to understand nature, seeking naturalistic explanations. That’s natural philosophy. Yes, we’ve since given it another label — but ontologically it’s no different.

What is left is religion: the narrative driven unobservable world that defies categorical thinking. It is the "openness" of our existence in all knowledge claims. — Constance

Eh. I myself don’t take the conventional distinctions between religion, philosophy, and science very seriously— any more than I take historical epochs like the “middle ages” and “renaissance” seriously. They’re useful in everyday discussion, but when looking at it a little closer they aren’t at all as clear or as neat as one would like to think.

What’s called religion in many ways deals with the same questions as philosophy…and science. I think the knee jerk reaction to this is historical — the Catholic Church persecuting early astronomers, or creationists trying to get ID taught in schools, etc. There’s a fear that our sense of truth is undermined if science and “religion” aren’t separated — that one deals with facts and the other with faith, etc. I used to think the same, and in many instances still do— but with the acknowledgement that it’s not always so simple.

current philosophy is, by and large, the study of mysteries. — Manuel

So’s science, no? Plenty of mysteries in science— unsolved problems, puzzling questions, etc.

Science is able to answer questions because it sets certain goals and standards for itself — it is more restricted. But it is by no means the final arbiter of truth. What is or isn’t true is a philosophical question. Nature and naturalism is an interpretation and fundamentally an ontological position.

Sometimes we get lucky and manage to bring some of the classic philosophical questions into the arena of empirical research, and then we get a science. — Manuel

I think the questions of philosophy can be answered, and in fact are answered all the time. We make our choices and live our lives largely on the basis of these answers, tacitly or explicitly. There’s many reasons and arguments for and against these answers. They don’t come out of nowhere— they come out of the human mind.

Again, empiricism isn’t necessarily the final word on the truth it falsity of something. Empiricism is itself a way of interpreting and engaging with the world, and with truth.

Incidentally, I value empirical evidence and reasons as much as the next person. I just don’t think we need to take the labels too seriously. Thinking, asking questions, solving problems, etc. — all worthwhile human activities. We can try to define various labels for what we do — but in the end the questions and problems themselves are what’s more interesting to me.

145 thousand years ago, human beings still existed. They still lived and raised families and suffered and contemplated the world and told stories. They created new tools and explanations and codes of conduct without a shred of care about whether they were “doing” philosophy or science or technology or religion. Just as they didn’t know or care that they were living in what later humans would call the Stone Age. I think we can learn something from them. Which is why I offered a very general picture of philosophy as a label for a kind of thinking — a kind of thinking distinguished by its universal questions. Natural thinking/philosophy is exactly that — it restricts its questions (and answers) to nature— to matter, to causes and effects, to observable and experimentally verifiable phenomena, to quantification, etc. We now call that science, and want to relegate everything else to religion (read: blind faith, superstition, mythology) and philosophy (the academic pondering of unanswerable questions and ultimately unproductive navel-gazing). That’s generally what I see happening here. Not necessarily you.

But this is only one man’s opinion.

Both science and philosophy try to explain the "mysteries" of our world through the use of theoretical frameworks.
Anything we don't know qualifies as a mystery to us.
So this is not where our intellectual tools differ.
The things are far more simple than most people believe.
When we have limited access to data but we are able to produce wise questions or metaphysical conclusions, then we are doing Philosophy
When we are able to produce additional data and we arrive to conclusions with epistemic and instrumental value, we are doing science.
The early stage of the theoretical process that include the applied principles and epistemology SHOULD be the same. So both methodologies should start from current epistemology, use the same naturalistic principles and through logic they should arrive to functional and meaningful frameworks.

If the early stage in of both processes drifts away from those basic steps then we are dealing with pseudo philosophy.
I am sorry but most of the members in this forum are guilty of reproducing pseudo philosophical ideas which are designed to provide comfort...not wisdom.