as some of the philosophical questions on what criteria could something count as a fact, how are facts isolated from other facts, what does it mean for something to be a fact etc. I — Tobias
The only thing on which I read both science and philosophy is the debate on free will. I did not find the scientific stuff very interesting or enlightening, — Tobias
There is no better way to explain the workings of the world than those discovered by science. For instance take 'behavioural economics'. If we would like to ask whether it is right to nudge people, an ethical question, we need to know how nudging works. We need to know the behaviorist model underlying it. So in our basic premises, should we rely on science to tell us how the world works, yes absolutely. Should we have great respect for it, a resounding yes! — Tobias
So in our basic premises, should we rely on science — Tobias
but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). Indeed, you just arrived here so blow a little less hard! I feel it is an insult to people who have learned a great deal more than he did. This is just my explanation for my own behaviour, that said I really do appreciate you defending him. — Tobias
Really? Come on why not? Free will is a topic that interests me also a lot and some science data about that debate I found them extremely interesting (especially neurologist data). Enlightening? Hmm.. Maybe not much indeed. But some things science says about it are really interesting and fascinating. — dimosthenis9
Well his style didn't seem insulting here. At least to me. But since you mention the "independent thinker" I guess you are talking about his other thread also, which as to be honest didn't follow it as to see the way he expressed there.
He seems like a honest debater, who seeks answers. But as I mentioned didn't read his other thread as to have a general opinion. — dimosthenis9
Well I don't like to pretend like Robin Hood of TPF who defend others but I guess he reminded me of myself when I first arrived here.
I was also really surprised how offending some members were and how insulting also. Couldn't use any arguments at all but only clever-ish lines and insults. And I remember thinking "wtf?! If I wanted these kind of shit I would have make a fb or twitter account!". — dimosthenis9
I have read other posts of you in various threads and your opinions are really interesting. Neither you seem like the person who would play the "wise teacher" role who has all the answers(like some other members do). So I was kind of surprised that you came so harsh on him. But well I don't know, if he did used that "me, me, me" tone in the other thread, it is annoying indeed. — dimosthenis9
but maybe we were looking for different things :) — Tobias
You did stay on though... what made you stay even if you felt you were being treated harshly or unfairly? — Tobias
A truly wise person sees the wisdom in the ideas of others, only then might he supersede them. — Tobias
I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. — Tobias
About the content of Alexandre's article I cannot say anything as the mathematics and physics are over my head. — Tobias
As a physicist, I can say something about it. — Hillary
I am sure you can actually, in the whole post you did :smile: The funny thing is I have no idea whether it is correct or even what you are saying. — Tobias
jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere. — Tobias
When he described coding all facts in the universe I quietly arose from my seat and left the theater. :cool: — jgill
The counter argument of course is that in many philosophical theories (of any kind of field) science plays a crucial role indeed — dimosthenis9
Maybe he wants to suggest a science based philosophy that would unify all fields or something like that — dimosthenis9
but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). — Tobias
It lead to a lot of side talking, where he explained to me how my questions were "wrong", how we could not see it the way I see it. And, to be honest this is the kind of behaviour that makes quite upset, as I wouldn't want to see philosophy as some kind of religion with rules where only certain opinions are accepted because they do not contradict other philosophical concepts. — Skalidris
wasn't he doing what philosophy ought to do? — Tobias
On the questions that were left.... he had no opinion. Of course not, because probably they were questions best left to science and he is no scientist. In one of my classes (not in uni but at a private course) a student exclaimed "are we getting any answers!". I answered "no, only better questions". — Tobias
Well, if this is what philosophy does, it becomes even clearer to me that it's impossible for science and philosophy to collaborate... What do you think? — Skalidris
I have no problem if someone doesn't have an opinion, but he could have said so from the beginning. Instead, he just explained how my point of view did not fit in his philosophical one... (and I'm not a philosophy student so that was even more irrelevant). If you want more details, my question was whether he thinks there are other causes than psychological ones for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (yeah I know, weird topic). And he spent his time telling me how we cannot separate the mind and the body. — Skalidris
What would be the "better questions"? Questions that challenge the logic of the concepts? Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? How does that make it "wrong"? What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion? — Skalidris
Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? — Skalidris
What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion? — Skalidris
I do not think philosophical concepts are 'stronger' than scientific ones, they concern different things — Tobias
Which is a philosophical statement about science. — Hillary
Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division? — Hillary
Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division? — Hillary
I don't see it as it would unify all fields, but rather use some scientific theories (not all!) when it seems relevant to a "philosophical" issue. — Skalidris
whether it belongs to philosophy or biology, or whether it should be studied by philosophy of biology, and I just find this incredibly inefficient. I saw that philosophy of biology aims to clarify such concepts but I'm still wondering : where is it at? Where is their consensus? — Skalidris
start with just science and slowly create a method on how to maximize logical reasoning leading to these concepts. — Skalidris
Can that statement be confirmed or falsified? Is it really what science does? Relgion seems to do the same. — Hillary
mind boy dualism is by many considered to be untenable. What he did (possibly, I wasn't there of course) was show you how this assumption, which is deeply problematic, was made in your argument. — Tobias
Philosophy questions, it does not give answers but puts those on the spot that would like to provide an answer. — Tobias
Well, you can of course, but you will run into problems because you have unwittingly accepted a whole lot of assumptions that they carry around with them. — Tobias
But I can understand your frustration cause though I find it necessary ,sometimes the overanalysis ends up ridiculous. — dimosthenis9
How do you imagine that method? — dimosthenis9
To visualise, we could build a mind map with all the underlying scientific concepts that lead to an understanding of the abstract one that we study, and detail the logical links we made between them. And this would include the uncertainties of the links we made. For example you could say this concept is partly related but not totally because of x and y, which can't be measured. To make it perfect, we would need this concept, which isn't proven by science. Do you know what I mean?
There could be several mind maps, with different underlying concepts but the idea would be to build the one that has the least uncertainties. — Skalidris
Question : Is the mind separated from the body?
Philosophical answer : Probably not, because it would cause a lot of problems if it was. — Skalidris
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.