So, if people like this emerge and write about it, would we even be aware they exist, would we even consider their work? Or are we stuck with slow changes? And by slow changes, I mean derivations from the main method that don't challenge it to the core. — Skalidris
existing ideas have to be understood first in order to overcome them — simplyG
an independent thinker would need some sort of education to learn the terminology and ideas employed by the current field of academics he wishes to present his ideas to otherwise it would seem like he was talking in a different language. — simplyG
existing ideas have to be understood first in order to overcome them — simplyG
The pace would depend on the amount of good ideas being produced — simplyG
due to some people having intuitions more compatible with recognizing the merit of the new idea — wonderer1
even all the Maths and Geometry theorems, that we are able to prove in so clever and irresistible ways, can be considered just another way how power is able to impose itself as the fundamental law, fundamental rule, in nature, in ideas, in everything. — Angelo Cannata
I think maths underlie our "universal logic" — Skalidris
You mean he would need to learn the philosophical terminology? Or the terminology of the closest discipline (here sciences)? If so, I agree, if he uses scientific premises as a part of his method, he needs to know about sciences and keep updated on scientific discoveries. But in the end, he would still use a new vocabulary he invented for the rest of the method since the end goal of his discipline is philosophy, and not sciences. And sciences, as it is now, is quite clueless about philosophy. No philosophical thought can be studied using only the scientific method. — Skalidris
2) Not fitting in isn’t comfortable, and often brings bad feelings. — Skalidris
Now imagine that this person would present their ideas to philosophers: it's quite certain they would reject it, since this new method is incompatible and could therefore discredit their lifetime work. They could present it to the other disciplines related to the new method, sciences for example. — Skalidris
unfortunately, universities don’t recognize the importance of a homeless, unless the homeless, as you said, finds a solution to a math professor. — Angelo Cannata
2. Making philosophy more directly relevant to the sciences. Because I read a LOT of popular science and philosophy of science it's become fairly obvious to me that a lot of bad science, bad philosophy, and wasted efforts talking past each other could be avoided by having science majors have a single "applied epistemology for the natural/social sciences," course — Count Timothy von Icarus
So, if people like this emerge and write about it, would we even be aware they exist, would we even consider their work? — Skalidris
Or are we stuck with slow changes? And by slow changes, I mean derivations from the main method that don't challenge it to the core.
P.S. I'm guessing a lot of people would disagree with premise 4, especially since philosophy seems so intuitive for some people that it would be hard to imagine how it could be done differently.
The only way forward for it is to abandon dualism, and in evolutionary terms this would be a catastrophe rather than part of a gradual evolution. . . — FrancisRay
Why would it be a catastrophe? — Skalidris
So, if people like this emerge and write about it, would we even be aware they exist, would we even consider their work? — 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.