I never understood why he didn't get the Nobel prize for general relativity. He made that on his own! Of course the math was there, and the Lorenz equations. Coming to think of it, he only said the speed of light is constant in every frame... leading to curvature of space.

I have no idea why he didn't. I have no idea about physics, so what you say here is right over my head. The question whether Einstein did everything by himself is a biographical question. That can be answered in principle by me, but I simply do not know. There are geniuses, maybe he was one, but my hunch is that you will find many contact points with other intellectuals. Or, he is one of those exceedingly rare exceptions which indeed do exist, but their existence is no reason to extrapolate from this a rule saying that 'independent thinkers' (whatever those may be) are wiser (whatever that might mean) than academic philosophers.

Bollocks probably. However we do not know. How can I predict what happens when we study philosophy without philosophers? — Tobias

I'm asking your opinion, not your prediction. Why would it be bollocks?

Those are not topics discussed in philosophy — Tobias

Okay, how about philosophy of mind and metaphysics? Better? The way you name it doesn't matter, a lot of philosophers studied the human behaviour (Nietzsche for example). But yes, using these terms, I already made other categories that suggest a broader understanding of the world. I basically mean any topic that can be discussed in philosophy with the philosophical method. And to me, human behaviour can, and it wouldn't be the same as in psychology.

Those topics are just to big to study and link in one lifetime. — Tobias

Does that mean no one should start doing it?

But now, are you just thinking science is better than philosophy or something? They are not skilled in the practice of philosophy and so take certain assumptions for granted without critical reflection, because that is what philosophy does and they have not had that training. — Tobias

What? No, that's not what I implied, it can't be compared, it's not the same field of study, how can one be better than the other? But yes you said it, no scientists are skilled to be philosophers if they haven't studied it, that's exactly my point, they would then be independent from it. But does that mean they can't discuss abstract concepts that are also discussed in philosophy? Does that mean they can't be critical? Do you think you can't learn to be critical by yourself?

Yes, but what are you talking about? You are saying they are not wise and stuff. The last sentence I do not understand. — Tobias

No, no, I'm not saying they aren't wise. Maybe I did not understand what you meant in your previous post, but I was just specifying that you can do science without philosophy, except if you take a very vague definition of philosophy, which could basically mean that everyone is a philosopher.

I'm asking your opinion, not your prediction. Why would it be bollocks? — Skalidris

Well, in my opinion they would probably produce less good philosophy. They have at their disposal the philosophical works, but not the training in philosophy. That is not to say that they will invariably produce bollocks. Many of those scientists are very intelligent people and might well produce worthwhile philosophy. As good as well known philosophers? Probably not because they simply lack practice in the field.

Okay, how about philosophy of mind and metaphysics? Better? The way you name it doesn't matter, a lot of philosophers studied the human behaviour (Nietzsche for example). But yes, using these terms, I already made other categories that suggest a broader understanding of the world. I basically mean any topic that can be discussed in philosophy with the philosophical method. And to me, human behaviour can, and it wouldn't be the same as in psychology. — Skalidris

I do not think Nietzsche studied human behaviour but that is beside the point, agreed. Ok, metaphysics. Well what would happen if someone well versed in metaphysics would write her thoughts on a metaphysical subject, let's say the problem of (personal) identity and compare it with someone versed in chemisty but not metaphysics. Well, my bet is that the person versed in metaphysics will write something more interesting than the chemist. She will just give me a lot of chemistry stuff.

Does that mean no one should start doing it? — Skalidris

Of course you can if one needs a hobby. However what comes out of it in terms of things interesting and novel to read is probably little. They will get the science wrong, or the philosophy, or the practical side of things.

But yes you said it, no scientists are skilled to be philosophers if they haven't studied it, that's exactly my point, they would then be independent from it. But does that mean they can't discuss abstract concepts that are also discussed in philosophy? Does that mean they can't be critical? Do you think you can't learn to be critical by yourself? — Skalidris

They can, but they would have a much harder time of it. Indeed I think you cannot learn to be critical by yourself. I think it is much more fruitful to be critical in discussions with others, with whom you can spar and grapple an who will take down your argument. You can learn how to play soccer by yourself but it is much better and easier to learn while playing soccer with others.

No, no, I'm not saying they aren't wise. Maybe I did not understand what you meant in your previous post, but I was just specifying that you can do science without philosophy, except if you take a very vague definition of philosophy, which could basically mean that everyone is a philosopher. — Skalidris

No. The fact that you can do science without philosophy does not imply that everyone is a philosopher. How does that argument run? Maybe we are talking past each other now...

Your question was who would be wiser, the independent thinker or the philosopher. I am not saying that one needs philosophy to do science... You can do it very well without doing philosophy, though it might help if you have learned a thing or two about it, but the other way around is equally true.... What I do contend it that being 'independent' is no advantage, not for doing science neither for philosophy.

She will just give me a lot of chemistry stuff. — Tobias

That depends on the chemistry. If she points at the chemistry of patterns in spike potentials and the chemistry involve in firing motor neurons, their relation and the chemistry of motion and perception, added with the chemistry of emotions, memory trails, and the happenings in a mushroomed brain, she wins.

You can do it very well without doing philosophy — Tobias

Every physicist has his/her (unconscious) philosophy on nature.

Many of those scientists are very intelligent people and might well produce worthwhile philosophy. As good as well known philosophers? Probably not because they simply lack practice in the field. — Tobias

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... Do you honestly think there is only one way to discuss these topics that are discussed in philosophy? And that the method in academia is the best way? If so, maybe tell me why you think it is so good, and why you think we could not come up with a better way.

I think you cannot learn to be critical by yourself. — Tobias

But who do you have to question the most in order to be critical? Yourself...

I think it is much more fruitful to be critical in discussions with others, with whom you can spar and grapple an who will take down your argument — Tobias

Yes, I agree, but you don't need philosophy for that.

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... Do you honestly think there is only one way to discuss these topics that are discussed in philosophy? And that the method in academia is the best way? If so, maybe tell me why you think it is so good, and why you think we could not come up with a better way. — Skalidris

Philosophy structures thinking. When they start doing philosophy they will do it philosophically. Philosophy also does not have one methodology, generally it refers to asking questions. Would they be wiser? Why would they? Just because someone starts from a different discipline?

We cannot come up with a better way because minds stronger than ours have. Why do you think one loner has the brainpower to challenge a whole community? Besides, the philosophic method' does not exist. If I see what they generally have in common is that they challenge presuppositions and assumptions and they make some logical or dialectical deductions. If a scientist would start asking philosopical questions he would be doing philosophy as philosophy is mostly defined by the questions asked than by the method employed.

But who do you have to question the most in order to be critical? Yourself... — Skalidris

No, you question others and open yourself up to questions by others, otherwise it is just navel staring.

Yes, I agree, but you don't need philosophy for that. — Skalidris

Nor did I say you did, what I dispute is the proficiency of the independent thinker...

Every physicist has his/her (unconscious) philosophy on nature. — Hillary

Philosophy is different from the currently popular but vapid 'having my own philosophy'. It is just a fancy word for 'opinion' in this case.

That depends on the chemistry. If she points at the chemistry of patterns in spike potentials and the chemistry involve in firing motor neurons, their relation and the chemistry of motion and perception, added with the chemistry of emotions, memory trails, and the happenings in a mushroomed brain, she wins. — Hillary

Wins what? A philosophical argument? Not at all. This just shows you are pretty hopeless at philosophy.

Wins what? A philosophical argument? Not at all. This just shows you are pretty hopeless at philosophy. — Tobias

I don't mind. I'm not into arguing.

Philosophy is different from the currently popular but vapid 'having my own philosophy'. It is just a fancy word for 'opinion' in this case. — Tobias

Every philosophy is one's own. There is no independent true philosophy hanging around somewhere with objective standards of what good philosophy is. The fact that you're hopelessly confused that philosophy is about arguing makes this seriously clear.

No, you question others and open yourself up to questions by others, otherwise it is just navel staring. — Tobias

Let us say someone has been reading Hume's Treatise on his own for a month. He presents his ideas to another philosopher and is told Hume rejects that interpretation on page 126. So a month wasted.

Well, my bet is that the person versed in metaphysics will write something more interesting than the chemist. She will just give me a lot of chemistry stuff. — Tobias

Why would that be more interesting? It completely depends. Who tells the best story. That doesn't need to be the metaphysician.

We cannot come up with a better way because minds stronger than ours have — Tobias

Um what? I don't even know how to answer to that, you're basically saying the strongest minds are in the past and not in the future, how does that even make sense? Why couldn't there be someone with a stronger mind (whatever that means)?

Why do you think one loner has the brainpower to challenge a whole community? — Tobias

Because it's been shown many times in history. A scientific mind could challenge the logic of the whole ecclesiastic community.

Besides, the philosophic method' does not exist. — Tobias

What... Okay try and say that to a philosopher that's been publishing in academia for a long time. There is literally a course about the philosophical method in the bachelor of philosophy... How do you think they decide who's going to be published and who's not? If there is no method, how can it be a discipline?

philosophy is mostly defined by the questions asked than by the method employed. — Tobias

Okay then anyone who's thinking about a philosophical topic is a philosopher... Yeah don't think so.

Okay try and say that to a philosopher that's been publishing in academia for a long time. There is literally a course about the philosophical method in the bachelor of philosophy... How do you think they decide who's going to be published and who's not? If there is no method, how can it be a discipline? — Skalidris

Not method but a standard of how a philosophy article is written. Very few philosophers believe there is a method to philosophy.

Let us say someone has been reading Hume's Treatise on his own for a month. He presents his ideas to another philosopher and is told Hume rejects that interpretation on page 126. So a month wasted. — Jackson

Indeed!

Every philosophy is one's own. — Hillary

Huh? You are confusing 'a philosophy', a popular, but meaningless usage of the term, with 'philosophy', a certain discipline relating to questioning fundamental assumptions about the way the world is again.

There is no independent true philosophy hanging around somewhere with objective standards of what good philosophy is. — Hillary

No, there is not, but you are aware that this sentence is not related to the one just before it are you?

The fact that you're hopelessly confused that philosophy is about arguing makes this seriously clear. — Hillary

You sentence does not even make sense syntactically. Anyhow, no I do not think philosophy is about arguing. I do think that philosophers should present their ideas an open them up to criticism. Though you are by all means free not to and keep it as 'your philosophy'. Bandying it about on a phil forum is maybe not such a good idea... but hey, suit yourself.

Okay then anyone who's thinking about a philosophical topic is a philosopher... Yeah don't think so. — Skalidris

It is like saying that anyone can be an artist. That's fine. Now show your work to other people. Convince a gallery to put on a show.
Get people to write about it. Same in philosophy.

It is like saying that anyone can be an artist. That's fine. Now show your work to other people. Convince a gallery to put on a show.
Get people to write about. Same in philosophy. — Jackson

Art shows creativity, it does not produce knowledge, unlike philosophy... Art doesn't publish papers... Where do you live? Have you ever been in academia in philosophy? Because here in Europe, I can assure you there is a method and you wouldn't be able to publish anything if you don't follow it. They take that very seriously. They almost see it as a science, certainly not as art.

Art shows creativity, it does not produce knowledge, unlike philosophy — Skalidris

I don't agree.

Um what? I don't even know how to answer to that, you're basically saying the strongest minds are in the past and not in the future, how does that even make sense? Why couldn't there be someone with a stronger mind (whatever that means)? — Skalidris

No I am telling you they work in unison, probably in a network of equally strong minds, probably now attending a serious philosophy conference.

Because it's been shown many times in history. A scientific mind could challenge the logic of the whole ecclesiastic community. — Skalidris

They had the power of a whole scientific community behind them. The Ptolemaic cosmology was basically archaic.

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

What... Okay try and say that to a philosopher that's been publishing in academia for a long time. There is literally a course about the philosophical method in the bachelor of philosophy... — Skalidris

Well, there are different philosophical methods, or better, standards on how to write a philosophy article as @Jackson pointed out. One can for instance employ discourse analysis, or phenomenology, or an analytic kind of logic chopping to a certain philosophical problem. I am not saying there is no methodology whatsoever, I am saying that there is not one methodology. Indeed methods wise, philosophy is rather slapdash compared to the sciences.

Okay then anyone who's thinking about a philosophical topic is a philosopher... Yeah don't think so. — Skalidris

No, you do it with a certain rigor an you place yourself within a certain philosophical debate. You elucidate your terms, you examine the presuppositions held in the debate and scrutinize them. None of that can be done when you are not well versed in the subject. I have never heard of 'the philosophic method' but that does not mean anything goes. Presenting a false dilemma... so unphilosophical.

Have you ever been in academia in philosophy? — Skalidris

Yes, I have an MA in philosophy.

Huh? — Tobias

Then whose is it?

You sentence does not even make sense syntactically — Tobias

Oh dear mother of god... This shows even clearer your seriously distorted and hopelessly confused ignorant attitude towards a discipline you cowardly conforming reduce to a set of prescribed standard rules with with you measure to eagerly show fallacies, syntax errors, logical flaws, contradictions, inconsistencies and incongruencies, non sequiturs, and other made up gimmicks to proof your inherent superiority. I leave it here. Nothing to be gained here. Neither philosophically, scientifically, or theologically. Goodday...

They had the power of a whole scientific community behind them. The Ptolemaic cosmology was basically archaic. — Tobias

And before there was a community, there must have been one or several person having the same idea and then gather together. I never said the independent mind wouldn't try to find like-minded people to create a community. But if the whole method of the previous discipline is trash, yes, the independent mind alone beats the whole community in my opinion.

Indeed methods wise, philosophy is rather slapdash compared to the sciences. — Tobias

Okay good, then why not try to create an actual method? :p Why not try to produce actual knowledge? Why would we have a discipline in academia that's "slapdash"?

Why not try to produce actual knowledge? — Skalidris

What is your standard for philosophical knowledge?

What is your standard for philosophical knowledge? — Jackson

What do you mean?

What do you mean? — Skalidris

You said, "Why not try to produce actual knowledge?" My question is, what standard are you using to determine what actual knowledge is?

what standard are you using to determine what actual knowledge is? — Jackson

Something that can't be compared to art xD That is created following a rigorous method, which you and Tobias seemed to say was absent in philosophy. And I would add it needs to be based on experiments to some extend, if possible, but that's just my rational/scientific side speaking.

And I would add it needs to be based on experiments — Skalidris

There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy.