Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy?
First, by “science-based philosophy”, I mean a discipline that would focus on the study of abstract concepts (just like philosophy does) but using a totally different method than philosophy. Instead of gathering data from everything that’s been produced by philosophy so far, it would start from scientific concepts (whether it is in biology, chemistry, or physics), so that the bases of the discipline are experiments, which, in my opinion, is a more objective window to the world than any other tools. The first consequence of this is that it would exclude a lot of topics that can’t be related to sciences with logic. For example, there is no concept in sciences which can help discuss the existence of God, so this matter would be ignored, and maybe left out for philosophy. It would question things like the human behaviour in a broader picture than psychology, the mind, life, the nature of ethics, space, infinity, logic, …
The point of comparison would only apply to the topics these two disciplines have in common. For example, philosophy also discusses what logic is, there is also a philosophy of the mind, etc. My question is, for those topics, which method do you think would work best? (by best, I mean having a greater potential of being useful in other disciplines, or in the society).
Example:
I think the concept of evolution already gives a much broader picture of life then any other scientific concepts ever did before. Evolutionary psychology already tries to analyse the human behaviour in terms of evolution but unfortunately, there are a lot of criticism about the accuracy of the claims made by this discipline, simply because they ignore some aspects of evolution, and jump into conclusions without exposing the uncertainties. My conclusion is that it is indeed very difficult to link scientific theories with more abstract concept, but not impossible. And if a method was created to do it in the best way, we could try to come up with reasonable knowledge, without being greedy wanting to try to explain everything. In my opinion, it could already offer a more accurate vision of the world, which could then be useful in the future.
P.S : I made this thread as the continuum of my previous thread “Would an “independent” thinker be wiser than an academic/famous philosopher?”.
Note:
This discipline does not aim to completely replace philosophy, a lot of subjects can't be discussed with scientific concept. Also, it is VERY different from science, and would not do any experiments. In other words, the aim would be to try to come up with concepts that arise from scientific theories, and these concepts would be abstract and not directly useful for sciences.
The point of comparison would only apply to the topics these two disciplines have in common. For example, philosophy also discusses what logic is, there is also a philosophy of the mind, etc. My question is, for those topics, which method do you think would work best? (by best, I mean having a greater potential of being useful in other disciplines, or in the society).
Example:
I think the concept of evolution already gives a much broader picture of life then any other scientific concepts ever did before. Evolutionary psychology already tries to analyse the human behaviour in terms of evolution but unfortunately, there are a lot of criticism about the accuracy of the claims made by this discipline, simply because they ignore some aspects of evolution, and jump into conclusions without exposing the uncertainties. My conclusion is that it is indeed very difficult to link scientific theories with more abstract concept, but not impossible. And if a method was created to do it in the best way, we could try to come up with reasonable knowledge, without being greedy wanting to try to explain everything. In my opinion, it could already offer a more accurate vision of the world, which could then be useful in the future.
P.S : I made this thread as the continuum of my previous thread “Would an “independent” thinker be wiser than an academic/famous philosopher?”.
Note:
This discipline does not aim to completely replace philosophy, a lot of subjects can't be discussed with scientific concept. Also, it is VERY different from science, and would not do any experiments. In other words, the aim would be to try to come up with concepts that arise from scientific theories, and these concepts would be abstract and not directly useful for sciences.
Comments (123)
No, I can tell you scientists aren't interested in that. It's not the role of science to try to paint a bigger picture of the reality, that's philosophy.
For example, I came up to a biology professor who was "debating" the notion of an individual, then I tried to get a definition out of him, which he couldn't produce, because he said it's too "complex". And there isn't any research on how to define that term, why? Because it's useless for biologists to define an individual, the use of that term isn't really important in their work. Why do I care about defining what an individual is? Because I care about the bigger picture, the representation of the world, that is a philosophical essence to me.
Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why.
I didn't reject the idea, I asked for an example, which you never gave. Can you please give me a concept in philosophy of science that is defined with scientific concepts?
The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts.
Then it really shouldn't be too hard for you to find an example, right? Why don't you give one?
If you really have no idea what philosophers of science do then you need to find out. I mean, this is extremely elementary.
If you could give me an example, I could show you how it is different from what I mean. But you won't do it so I assume you're not interested in debating anymore, or you have no idea what you're talking about.
correct
It would do away with Popper 's methodology!
Absolutely not, Popper is talking about science, about the method, about what qualifies as science, so this is philosophy of science, not a science-based philosophy. Unless I'm missing another part of his work that I'm not aware of?
As you wrote, Quoting Skalidris. That’s exactly the problem: philosophy is going to ignore more and more what cannot be grasped in an objective way. What cannot be grasped in an objective way is precisely subjectivity and everything related to it, like, for example, relativism, consciousness. With this “scientific drift” of philosophy, a dangerous mentality can become more and more a normal habit of thinkers: the mentality of thinking “what I cannot understand, what I cannot grasp, does not exist, or is not worthy of interest”. According to some philosophers, for example, Chalmers’ “hard problem of consciousness” does not exist, simply because it cannot be defined objectively. Similarly, consciousness is being explored by philosophy as a phenomenon whose ultimate answer is expected to be given by neuron sciences. More dramatically, the problem of subjectivity, which I mean, relativism, just does not exist. Relativism is considered only in the perspective of social relativism, that can be easily turned into an objective phenomenon. For example, morality is subjective, because different people in society think differently, but this social perspective makes philosophers think that, once we understood the social dependencies that cause different opinions, we have ultimately gained an objective final image of the question. Essentially, what happens is that the philosopher forgets and ignores their own subjective existence; subjectivity is the plurality of others’ opinions, forgetting that this is being thought inside the subjectivity of who is thinking of it.
There is a tiny opposite tendency that is going to be explored in the world: it is philosophy as experience, as meditation, as a chance for an experience of meeting between people, where what is most important is not the discussed topic, but the persons who are meeting each other. This recovers philsophy as a spiritual experience, as it was in ancient Greek, as Pierre Hadot has shown. This way philosophy explores more deeply its connections with literature, art, music, life. These connections are going to be ignored by philosophers with an “analytic”, which is scientific, tendency.
Yes, but is it based on how science actually works? No. He offers a caricature. A scientist as a nervous falsifying machine.
Philosophy's goal should be to contribute to the search of truth for humans. And science is the only verified "human truth" we have. Science shows the road via knowledge.
So yes, a philosophy that is based on science and its facts would be a much better servant for that role. Again I repeat, that is the case If we set the goal of philosophy on helping humans find out as more "truth" as they can.
And for me that should be one the most important roles of philosophy, probably the most important one
I cannot think of a single thing from science that helps me understand the world. Not being contentious.
Can't help you with that.
I was not asking you for help.
The search for truth? Why is that so important?
Science only describes. It doesn't make one truly understand.
It is when you are curious. And curiosity is what fueled humanity as to make all that long journey of knowledge till nowadays.
Not necessarily of course that all people are or should be curious.
As long one is not blinded by that search, it's okay, I guess. Sometimes the truth can turn out to be a mass hallucination, while the real truth is dismissed because of that longing.
Finding that out is also included in the search of truth progress.
That seems right.
Given that the ‘ hows’ get their orientation , sense and coherence from the ‘why’s’, I’m not sure how a philosophy could avoid a stance on the ‘hows’. In the same vein, every new ‘how’ generated within physics subtly challenges or adjusts an implicit ‘why’ framing their ‘hows’ , although this tends to go unnoticed by the physicist.
As philosopher of science Joseph Rouse puts it:
“ I am questioning any sharp or even significant boundaries between science and other meaningful comportments as practices that allow entities to show themselves intelligibly. My examples were chosen because they can neither be rightly described as scientific determinations of how things matter to us, nor as sociocultural determinations of scientific significance. Rather, they show how scientific understanding is integral to a larger historical disclosure of possibilities, within which scientific practices acquire and transform their issues and stakes.”
That’s what Heidegger thought. But philosopher of science Joseph Rouse argues that science frequently does play the kind of role people tend to associate with philosophy.
I've studied a lot of science in college and on my own. I can't really say there is anything from science that has helped me understand the world. A few things, maybe, but mostly not.
I've read things by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Sean Carroll that were philosophical and insightful. But most of science is as interesting as reading an accounting textbook.
I think this question shows a fundamental misconception of what philosophy is and what it's role is in human understanding of the world. First, let's strip away those aspects of philosophy that have nothing much to do with science - Ethics and morals, aesthetics, politics, maybe religion. That leaves us with metaphysics, including ontology and epistemology. I see other disciplines; e.g. philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language; as included within those branches.
Ontology investigates the nature of reality. Epistemology investigates what we know about the nature of reality, how we know it, and how certain we are of it. Together, ontology and epistemology set the rules for knowledge, including science. The fact that we live in a universe which is understandable and behaves in coherent and consistent ways is an ontological principle. The scientific method is a set of epistemological rules.
Science can't pull itself up by it's bootstraps. That's the thing, one of the things, that philosophy is needed for.
I guess it was the implications of the sciences I was first exposed to that bowled me over. First came Einstein , which amazed me when I was 16, then Darwin. Darwin completely revolutionized the thinking of a generation of philosophers. American Pragmatism would have been impossible without him. Freud was less of an influence on me but Piaget’s approach tremendously impressed me, showing a way to connect the aspirations of religious thought with empiricism. Chomsky’s transformational grammar, and The Gestalt psychologists certainly stirred my imagination( and also the imagination of phenomenological philosopher Merleau-Ponty).
More recently , the autopoietic model of Varela and Maturana was a significant advance in psychological as well as biological thinking.
Good. I was reading about enactivism in grad school and remember reading Varela and being interested. Had too many things to do to go further.
Many philosophers are interested in the philosophy of science. But if you look at statistics of jobs offers for philosophy professors, most are not in that area of specialty.
Scientific information is important but at a certain point that information ends and you will be required to philosophize without experimentation. If you want to explain everything there is simply no way to do it through science.
The question though is, if it's worth the bloodshed.
For example, person A thinks he knows the truth. The majority B thinks they know. Person A is tortured, his rights denied, and ridiculed, because B thinks they know better.
I don't see how this is relevant to seeking the truth. When you seek for the truth you don't need to deprive others from their rights. That has nothing to do with that.
Things you describe are general human weaknesses and not caused by searching the truth. In fact I would say it's even the opposite. When you don't seek for the truth yourself, it is more possible to end up acting like that cause just somebody else told you to do so.
Well, I witness this in the very core of science. Views that are right are shunned, ridiculed, argumented to death, or banned, while the majority clings to the hallucination, precisely because the "urgency" to know.
Views that are based upon repeatable peer-reviewed scientific results?
The interesting thing is that in the previous thread you argued for the independent thinker. However here, what you really seem to want is to limit philosophy to the scientific method, restricting the independency of philosophy. You want to do that because in your view the experimental method yields more'objective' insights. You implicitly value third person description higher. However, we might well lose some registers of thought when we embrace this approach. Thinking through such implications is a matter of philosophical enquiry. Such an implicit value judgment has also ethical implications because the scientific method is not neutral. When we elevate its findings to the level of truth beyond what experiments actually prove, but base our 'bigger picture' on it you reduce the world to that which can be experimentally understood in a laboratory setting. You also neglect the fact that such a jump requires a lot of interpretation but how that is done remains unclear.
Your plea for independence in fact comes down to a plea for reductionism and dependence, limiting rather than expanding our avenues of thought. It does not come as a surprise because such absolutist proposals when thought through tend to revert into their opposite. I recommend the dialectical philosophical method ;).
The point is, that these exactly could be wrong.
Are these things what science does??? And especially to "right views"?? Since when?
You have a very weird view of what science is or does I have to say.
They could be. But because they went through rigorous peer review the chance is lower than your average garden variety theory thought up by whoever.
My point is that exactly that so-called peer reviewing can be a peer hallucination.
Since the very beginning. The right stuff of today can turn out the wrong tomorrow.
That depends on the people involved.
Seems odd....Some people are more prone to hallucination than others, sure, but the chance of having 5 prone is smaller than one prone.
I think you do understand this rather simple logic, but you do not want to. You do not want to because that would involve critical self reflection and you would have to face the possibility that you yourself might be hallucinating. You do not want to face that possibility just yet. You will though, in time.
It could be that the sixth realized the hallucination. I feel like the sixth.
yes but how likely is it really that you are? That is what you have to wonder about. You might feel like A, but if you hear B all the time, you might be B, no?
Yes! I heard B too long. Assumed it real. But actually it's A. And only a genius can tell!
I havent done the exact statistics, but its close to 100%.
Quoting T Clark
I think you understood that I wanted to remove philosophy and do sciences only, which is absolutely not what I meant.
Quoting chiknsld
I suggest you read again my OP where I explicitly say that it wouldn't try to explain everything, and that some topics would be left for philosophy.
Quoting Tobias
No, I want to create something else that is restricted to scientific theories as the basis of the reasoning, not the scientific method. Did everyone miss the part where I said I don't want to replace philosophy? That I'm only comparing the topics these two would have in common?
Quoting Tobias
No, in the example, I talk about the uncertainties, and about why it lead to poor theories when they tried something like that with evolutionnary psychology. And yes, how it is done is probably unclear for you, so you're saying it's impossible to do it well?
Quoting Tobias
You totally misunderstood what I meant. Just because there would be a discipline that's dependent on scientific theories doesn't mean I encourage reductionism. Again, I DO NOT WANT TO DESTROY PHILOSOPHY. Or even believes, keep all that, the point of comparison does not apply to these.
SUBTOPIC: What is "Science?" • What is a "science-based Philosophy?" • What is the "
Philosophy of Science?"
?? Jackson, Skalidris, et al,
(COMMENT)
The "Philosophy of Science" is a sub-discipline of "Philosophy." "Philosophy" is the (in a broad sense). the critical and systematic study of an unlimited spectrum of concepts (science being just one of these concepts). The "science-based Philosophy" is the study of a subject that is done through the scientific method that renders verifiable findings by observation or experience rather than theory or subjective approach via logic.
The idea of "contemporary philosophy" is also subjective in its definition and application. I am 70 years old. What I feel as to what might be "contemporary" is not likely to be the same as a new undergrad taking Philosophy 101.
OK, I have my chuckle for the day.
I've completed my doctorate studies, and I just cringe when Karl Popper is mentioned. IF you understand Popper, THEN you are a level beyond me.
Most Respectfully,
R
:snicker: (a snicker!?)
Quoting Rocco Rosano
His basics are easy. Science must be falsifiable, which is coupled to a Platonic realm of a world only approximately to be known, so without actually touching it. It's the ides most scientists cling to but in reality real scientist don't conform to this neurotic idea of a never ending search. At some point you say "this is true".
Look what I found on Quora. An excerpt:
A telltale...(is that the right expression?)
So what? Of course that is the case,since science doesn't have all the answers neither claims it does.
But it is indeed the most appropriate method to search and test these answers for humanity's sake.
Real science is never dogmatic. It is a constant procedure and of course it contains a certain amount of uncertainty each time in every step.
How is that relevant to "argument to death" or "banning" others as you say? How is possible science to be responsible for all these things you mention?
Your way of thinking is really weird and out of the Logic path. And well, as to be honest, not really interested as to investigate it further.So take care.
Central DOGMA of molecular biology
Because science pretends to search for truth, while in reality it's objective is far more obscure. Take care.
How you know the so desired truth then?
Yeah I forgot to mention that in some cases IS dogmatic! And good it does. If science shows Earth isn't flat and some still believe it is, well yeah good then that science doesn't leave any space to such nonsense.
Likewise, there are flat-spacers. In the case of the central dogma though, a whole vision on nature might turn out to be a mass hallucination. There is no proof of the conjecture. Yet Dawkins uses it in his selfish gene scenario. And there are more dogmas...
You want to create 'big pictures' based on scientific theory. Well go ahead study cultural sociology, or macro economics or big history. They are already there as branches of the sciences. You think philosophy comes up with 'big pictures', but only some philosophy like some science does so. And even those do not improve with the use of 'scientific theories'. Philosophy examines the building blocks of such theories for instance their conceptual aparatus and the paradigm in which they are articulated and how their claims to truth are assessed. Why would you want to use the object of enquiry to examine the object of enquiry? Seems very circular.
And let's say those philosophies that do offer big systems of thought, like Hegel's, The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware. That can never be refuted or proven by scientific theory, the picture is actually too big.
Quoting Hillary
How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do?
If I count the odds than my assessment is that you dream of coming up with one but will not do so. What indications do you have for thinking you will come up with a revolutionary theory? If you use Quora as a source I have even less high hopes.
Not many. Newton, Galilei, Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Smolin, Strominger, etc. to name a few all worked quite independently and were trendsetters.
Quoting Tobias
Besides the syntactically wrong sentence, your assessment is wrong. How do you know? Statistics? Don't make me laugh...
If you look at the rest of my post, you should be able to see that I didn't misunderstand you.
Wait I'm confused : "is"? Like it actually exists?
Quoting Hillary
Yeah careful, we're coming, be prepared.
Again, can you please read my OP? I said science based: chemistry, biology and physics.
Quoting Tobias
You didn't understand what I meant, and I don't think you want to.
Quoting Tobias
Well that's what philosophy of science does, not everything in philosophy is about that.
The dark forces are gathering Skalidris... Dark clouds are seen in the West... We should consult the great wizard...
Dear mother of gods...
No you said scientific based concepts and you provided those three as an example. Little did I know you think there are only three sciences in the world.
I read your OP. You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks.
Quoting Skalidris
I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to.
Quoting Skalidris
No, philosophy of science philosophically investigates the concepts through which science works, it examines the methodology of science, it examines perhaps how scientific theories emerge, but it does not use scientific concepts to examine themselves.
Quoting Hillary
Yes and what are the odds that we see Hillary up there? You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton?
Quoting Hillary
I really do not need statistics for that assessment. Reading your posts is enough.
"Dear mother of gods..." And your reading comprehension, I gave an example and took it from there. This is not necessarily my opinion.
My conclusion as well.
If you understand my cosmology you will see I belong in the row properly. Proper properly and not like most others claim, believe me...
Which only goes to show your level is very low.
Well have you thought about asking more questions instead of jumping into criticism?
Quoting Tobias
What... This is such a twisted idea, why would anyone want to do that? To make things clearer, you could have another discipline, even a branch of philosophy which studies the method of this "science-based philosophy", just like there is a philosophy of science, why not? But this science-based philosophy wouldn't study the method of any discipline.
Quoting Tobias
Quoting Jackson
This is a forum for f sake... Why would you say that to someone who wants to have a productive debate? What do you hope to achieve with that? If you really think I don't have a point, ask more questions to prove it instead of telling everyone how stupid they are based on a few messages. Is that also part of the great set of methods philosophy has? Is that how you challenge the logic of your ideas?
Respectfully, please state the thesis you are arguing for.
I did, in the OP, but if you think some parts are unclear, do tell.
Oh but by the way, I thought you said you didn't want to argue anymore, what happened to that?
:snicker:
I excepted this to be more funny, disappointed.
:snicker: Apologies.
I think his general point is that philosophy should have as a general starting point science facts.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers for everything. But we should have huge respect to it . And it is the best "method" we have as humans to verify these "answers".
In some cases 'yeah it can't help much since human knowledge has a lot more to discover. But in some other cases, science should (not to say must) be taken in much consideration as a starting point for any philosophical thinking. It would save us "time" and much "spiritual energy" if we did that.
For example: when we want to think philosophical about human behavior let's say, it is totally necessary to include the neurologist science and brain science and even biology(including genes as a crucial parameter also).
Our philosophical thinking can't ignore such science facts. If we want to come as close to the truth we can. That's what I think is his point and well at its core I agree. The way he express it though is kind of vague. But come on, he just arrived here. Don't be so harsh with him.
The counter argument of course is that in many philosophical theories (of any kind of field) science plays a crucial role indeed. So that kind of "science based philosophy" already exists in some way.
Maybe he wants to suggest a science based philosophy that would unify all fields or something like that .Just guessing and I m not really sure that this could be even possible.
Here is An Example on this very forum.
You tell me. I know I do.
Quoting Tobias
That not are the geniuses. Newton was no genius whatsoever. Maybe I have nightmares about him but I certainly do not have wet dreams about him.
Quoting Tobias
I truly have no idea what you saying here. Must be my reading compression...
If you're claiming that conventional academic/scientific understanding could be wrong, I would readily concur. However, that alone is insufficient ground for denying some particular aspect of it.
Of course not. That would be silly and surely not sufficient. You gotta have good grounds for believing that a mass hallucination is happening in a scientific community.
As I am a physicist outside from the community, I think I have a better view on it.
I'm not following you. You claimed that science(in general) ridiculed some other scientists(presumably a minority) who were "right". I asked if the ridiculed peoples' views were based upon repeatable peer reviewed information(experiments/papers/etc.) As shown below...
Quoting creativesoul
Quoting Hillary
:brow:
Seems to be a gap in communication here... Only you can help me to understand what you're trying to say. I'm now thoroughly confused regarding that.
Yes. For example, the notion of a point particle being replaced by a more natural interpretation.
The point is, how does one know the peers are right? Because they say so? And you trust them? Okay...
I am curious how did things turn out with him? I googled him and could not find much. I found a site in which he was quoted and it was said that he attracted praise from a noteworthy prof. It also said that the article was retracted... Also some connection to a company called bioresolve...
I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. It would not surprise me though if he was a really great (or good) mind. That has to do with his style on the forum. He provides an abstract and adds that it has been rewritten after some discussions with people on this forum, giving credit where it is due. He asks for feedback and discussion, which is good form. Compare that with some others here who just say: "everyone should work as they do in physics!" or: "I am a genius, I really really am! And Newton? Pha! no genius at all!". When I read such phrases I know I am not dealing with someone who is 'compos mentis'. About the content of Alexandre's article I cannot say anything as the mathematics and physics are over my head.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I like your post Demosthenis and that you stand up for Skalidris. I think on the face of it there would be a lot of disagreement between us, on the forum. However, in principle we agree on many things. I would not say "philosophy should have as its starting point scientific facts" 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 come from a continental tradition and you seem much ore analytical to me, though I could be wrong of course. 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, but do love P.F. Strawson's article, even though I disagree with him on some accounts. (I do read a lot of social science though, but in this thread science seems equivocated with natural science).
However on many of the basic premises we would agree. Of course a philosopher should take science into account. 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!
The reason I am harsh on Skalidris is that his point is rather trivial, in your translation I tend to agree with it as well to a large extent, 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.
Yeah there are a lot of vague points in such things and that's why I mentioned that science can't help in many philosophical questions. But in some fields it can indeed. And in those fields a philosophy thinker should always take under consideration science facts.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Tobias
That's what I m talking about.My core point in fact is this :
Quoting Tobias
And behavioral economics is a really good example.
Quoting Tobias
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.
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!".
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.And kind of laughable also.
I m kind of bored though as to go and check his other thread now as to be honest. Hahaha. But I might do it later.
I am not saying they are not interesting or fascinating, or enlightening. I did not find what I was looking, but maybe we were looking for different things :) I by no means would wish to discredit neurology or anything.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Well yeah, maybe I am biased by the other thread. If he is an honest debater he will take it to heart, present his thesis better and with less bravado than in the other thread. Everyone who is an honest debater will get an honest response... :)
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yeah, and that is why I liked you standing up for him. We all need defenders, this time I am playing the role of the role of the prosecutor but I value a good defense. You did stay on though... what made you stay even if you felt you were being treated harshly or unfairly?
Quoting dimosthenis9
The 'me me me' was an inference of mine and maybe unfair, that is possible, though I am not sure yet. I do think that a bit of tough love cannot harm. In Dutch we have a figure of speech, he who hits the ball should expect it to come back. I do not have anything personal against Skalidris. I do not have all the answers... I usually do pounce upon the people that claim they do... Eventually Skalidris will go back, reformulate, rework and resubmit and he will become stronger. I am against using velvet gloves, but you and he should rest assured this is nothing personal. A truly wise person sees the wisdom in the ideas of others, only then might he supersede them.
Well put. That is probably the case.
Quoting Tobias
Here I found a place where I can discuss issues that I can't discuss in my real life. Most of the people I know in real life, get bored with such issues or even don't care about them .
But I have obsession(literally I do.. hahha) with these things and I am damn curious. So at least here I found some people to discuss about all these. Or at least read their opinions cause I can't say that I m extra vivid in commenting.
So I just accepted the fact that, as in all communities, here too (even to a philosophy forum) concludes all kind of human weaknesses that you meet in every micro-society outside in real life.
I just write on my balls whoever trolls or talks offensive with no arguments. Ignoring them as I do in my real life and go on. But well, before I turn my back , they will receive the proper answer that they deserve.
Plus there are also some posters here that I really appreciate their way of thinking and their knowledge. And some seem really clever ones. So it is nice to hang out with clever people. You can always learn something. And that leads to...
Quoting Tobias
I wasn't familiar with the math he used but it looked OK as far as I got. Hillary (or a previous incarnation) is a physicist and seemed to think there was some merit there, other than the fatal flaw of not being about physics in the original form. What turned me away was the notion of virtually everything being Turing machines. It seemed more an exercise in CS from my perspective. But I think the author is very smart and could be onto something.
As a physicist, I can say something about it. I have looked over the math. He uses Hestenes's spacetime physics formalism and transplants quantum mechanics to experimental practice ("practice states", as states in a Hilbdrt space or even wider, a Fock space) and T?ring machines. The observer (the singleton, as he rather impersonally calls it), math, physical models, theories, are all part of a context. A context to his "absolute" reality. The reality of clicks in an experiment, programs, and Türing machines to let them run on and operate on the "clicks". He made quite some errors in the math, but not substantial. Mostly wrong indices, or two times the same expression for different things, or make-up errors. There was no real quantum gravity present. He used the classical Einstein Hilbert action, from which a gauge theory for classical general relativity follows, not the quantum version. He used an entropic approach to information, but the point is that this cant be applied to experimental outcome. Basically he projected QM on experimental outcomes and used maximum entropy to maximize a measure for a kind of experimental Hilbert space to include all possible experiments. So it's no wonder that the Born rule automatically follows, as he put that in in the first place. He proposed an interference experiment to show quantum gravity, but that experiment shows he has not a truly good understanding of basic quantum mechanics and when I helped him clearing up the math he used I thought how he could not see those obvious things himself before publishing. He had the tendency to pull all your physical thoughts into his "context" while actually, from the POV of real physics, it are his notions of the observer, the Türing machines, the clicks, and the programs that are the context. Though I believe that even computer programs are considered context. Most of his math is just stated and pulled in straight from the books. He has done a few calculations himself, mainly a lot of e powers. And he uses a lot of tuples and matrices to offer experiments, which he transformed to mere sentences and symbols, to fit the math. It's a cold theory without a personal touch. No new and interesting physics and a suggestion for an experiment from which nothing about quantum gravity can be deducted. Believe me, if that were the case then we would have known. Many clicks, little hot licks! But my spacetime physics formulation got an impulse. Much math, easy math, but not one inch of physics.
In short, it's no wonder quantum mechanics follows from his "ToE" if he has put it in in the first place. Quantum gravity is nowhere to be seen. The math is used for the wrong subject matter, as the thermodynamical entropy can't be applied to experimental "states". The theory is impressive at first sight (mainly because of the math, but that is more of a diversion here) but at closer look it's an attempt to draw the whole world within his view. Which would be no problem if he could relativize but he truly thinks it's the only absolute reality, while in reality there are many. The first encounter made me sit up. Could it be...? But no... And J already knew that it couldn't be, because I know how reality functions at the fundamental level, and how the big bang came to be. I thought about it all my life 36 years long (well, a bit less of course). Away from the scientific community, which might be exactly why. Of course I absorbed known physics. And recently it fell all into place.
You got it exactly right!
Thanks for your summary. What he did and didn't do makes more sense now. :up:
Maybe as a philosophical ToE it makes sense, but not as a physical. After all, he says physical models and theories belong to the context. His reality concerns the patterns of clicks. Certain things when asking, he very cleverly evaded. Or directed them to his context. I have to say, it was pretty consistent (if that is an advantage in the first place, but Im sure his judges think so).
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. That is by no means a fault of yours, just that understanding the whole language of physics requires a proper initiation and study. It is like that with many subjects of course, including philosophy actually, although it might be less specialized than theoretical physics. Like jgill I thank you too for the summary, I can just not make any constructive comments as I still do not know what it is about. I do thank you for taking your time and comments on the paper. @jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere.
Sometimes J forget that. If it seems so obvious, it's hard to get it's not for others. I remember encountering the first theoretical, mathematical formulations of fundamental physics. WTF...? So I thought. But its actually pretty simple once you see through it. And I remembered fantasizing about coming with a physical ToE of my own... And now I have! :grin:
No worries...
I gave him as an example of someone who has tried in a fairly sophisticated way to do something new in philosophy related to science, not as one who has succeeded in doing so. When he described coding all facts in the universe I quietly arose from my seat and left the theater. :cool:
I would have quietly followed you. To watch that movie in the theater next to it and drink some beers. Maybe we stumbled on some truly interesting stuff. In the complex plane... :cool:
Thank you! I think you understood my point.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Could you give me an example?
Quoting dimosthenis9
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. Maybe it is already done by some but there are a lot of concepts for which it isn't done and if we had such a discipline, we wouldn't miss out on so many concepts. As I gave the example earlier, scientists don't define the term "individual" or "organism". When I'm searching for such definitions, I mostly find debates about whether it is useful to define it, 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?
There seems to be a huge problem for philosophers and scientists to communicate with each other and maybe that's why it doesn't lead to some kind of encyclopedia where they would define such concepts (also giving the uncertainties on the definition they created). My point being, this interdisciplinary approach is clearly not working, so maybe we should forget everything we know about philosophy (only for that purpose, not remove it from the society), start with just science and slowly create a method on how to maximize logical reasoning leading to these concepts.
Quoting Tobias
I'm sorry you felt insulted, it did not mean to insult philosophy. I did mean to criticise it though. Maybe I haven't spent enough time with philosophers to say all of this with certainty, but my experience has been pretty bad, and not just with philosophers, but also when I read philosophical articles in general. I once spent 15 mins trying to get a philosophy professor to answer one of my question, which simply was "what's your opinion on that matter?". 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. The funniest thing is that, in the end, he said he doesn't have an opinion, he doesn't know... I really don't know how science and philosophy can collaborate if philosophy doesn't accept to see the world other than with philosophical concepts...
I can relate to your experience. I have been a student once too and it happened to me as well. It makes one feel annoyed maybe, but on closer inspection... wasn't he doing what philosophy ought to do? He wasn't giving you a religion with rules and dogma, on the contrary! He used his expertise to pick apart your questions into questions than can be answered and those that cannot be. The ones who could not be, perhaps because they included hidden assumptions, or were 'loaded', or simply contradictory were discarded. 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".
Of course asking better questions leads to better answers and it may also lead to insight in social behaviour, or in the perception works, or in relation to freedom of the will or whatever, but that is essentially the philosophical discipline. It cuts the dead wood from the branches of knowledge.
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?
Quoting Tobias
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. The problem is, there are a lot of philosophical concepts, and a lot of them contradict each other, so how can you even say that a question is wrong if it doesn't fit a concept (which here I think is more of an opinion)? 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?
No, not at all. I think it is a good division of labour. Sciences maps what the world is like and philosophy brings to the fore the categorizations and assumptions that the map has implicitly and often subconsciously accepted.
Quoting Skalidris
Yes, what he did was bring to the fore an assumption made in the question, perhaps the body and mind being separate. Indeed mind body dualism is considered extremely problematic from a philosophical point of view. The reason is that we would have to account for something non-material and establish a link between the material and mental stuff, so it is not just his philosophical scheme, 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.
Quoting Skalidris
Better questions are more examine questions, questions of which the asker knows what kind of philosophical baggage they carry with themselves. You can still ask the question of course, but now with knowledge of the things you would have to accept as well when you think this is a meaningful question. (On the question itself I have no opinion, I do not even understand it because I do not know the subject, but that is beside the point)
Quoting Skalidris
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.
Quoting Skalidris
I do not think philosophical concepts are 'stronger' than scientific ones, they concern different things.
For instance the scientist wants to do an experiment. He wants to examine whether X emerges under laboratory conditions Y. He talks to a philosopher and she asks her, ok what are your criteria to say indeed X emerged? How can you be sure that X emerged due to conditions Y and not some hitherto unknown condition? Can you in fact know, or is there always a possibility of error? Perhaps there is, how can you minimise it? If there still is, when would you be confident that indeed Y caused X to emerge etc. Philosophy questions, it does not give answers but puts those on the spot that would like to provide an answer. Both are meaningful, but different.
Which is a philosophical statement about science.
Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division?
Oh! Sorry! I'll leave the two of you... just saw it now...
Yes it is.
Quoting Hillary
Specialization I think. Maybe also the emancipation of both science and philosophy, in different ways, out of religious dogma. I think it is more of a history of science / hist of phil question or a sociology of science question than a natural scientific or philosophical one. I am not sure though.
Can that statement be confirmed or falsified? Is it really what science does? Relgion seems to do the same.
Specialization. Contemporary philosophers give common examples to illustrate their ideas, like, "Mary sees blue."
Earlier figures like Frege used examples that more literary, like citing Homer or a Latin author (untranslated). Even Frege expected his readers to be widely educated.
I agree that would be extremely helpful sometimes and could direct the philosophical reasoning to more fruitful grounds.
At the end at every philosophical issue that we want to debate about, we do need a starting base which better be as solid as it gets.And well there is nothing more solid or appropriate than a scientific base (when it can be used of course).
Quoting Skalidris
Well that debate you mention though inefficient in some way it is also important though and crucial. Clarifying concepts could give us better questions indeed(as Tobias mentioned) and better questions would lead us to better answers.
But I can understand your frustration cause though I find it necessary ,sometimes the overanalysis ends up ridiculous. That definition game, though useful, it can turn into an endless circle tale hunting.
If you stick around here on TPF for some time, you will witness it yourself. Some members just looove that definition game.
But at the end we can't get stuck up only to questions and stop there!Say "oh we can't define it 100%. So let's just shut up and don't say anything at all about it!". Come on.
The ultimate goal is Answers after all. We do need them even if we don't know the absolute ones. Or at least some suggestions(possible answers) as to state it better. But not saying anything?? Pfffff I find it extra silly.
Quoting Skalidris
How do you imagine that method? It doesn't sound bad but I think the problem is that "just science" ought to deal and present facts. That's why some philosophical concepts can't be defined by science and it would be non-scientific if anyone tried to attempt to do so.
So I m not sure how that "general method" it could be applied. I see it mostly that each philosophical case is different and needs a unique approach each time. So it depends on each "case" if science can actually really help us or not.
I do not understand. What statement needs falsification? That science creates a map of what the world is like? Well, that statement is itself too imprecise, but with modifications it can be falsified. We could scientists what they think they are doing for instance. Religion usually does not just describe but also ascribes a certain telos to the world, it has a normative dimension that science in general lacks. Or was that not what you were after?
In other words :
Question : Is the mind separated from the body?
Philosophical answer : Probably not, because it would cause a lot of problems if it was.
Assumptions : a lot of assumptions about what the mind and the body actually mean.
Problem : the scientists and philosophers have totally different definition of these.
You, a couple of lines later :
Quoting Tobias
How's that not an answer to say the mind is probably not separated from the body?
Philosophy of sciences studies the assumptions of science, and I believe epistemology can study the assumptions of philosophy. But philosophy isn't just about criticising knowledge, is it? What about Ontology, doesn't it study what reality is? How is that a critique of knowledge provided by other disciplines?
Quoting Tobias
Oh and philosophical concepts don't have assumptions?
And by the way, this hypothetical science-based philosophy could still take "advice" from a philosophy of sciences.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You know what's funny? If you set the limits of the analysis, it's impossible to overanalyse, you would end up saying "this matter is out of the limit of this discipline".
Quoting dimosthenis9
Well, I actually believe some clarity could be gained if we made the assumptions explicit rather than implicit. 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.
Yeah I think I got your point. Like putting down all the scientific data we have for each concept and starting making the most logical assumptions and connections between them(where of course is possible).
And going on afterwards including the uncertainties of each connection and evaluate the cases with the least uncertainties, right?
It is an interesting idea. I don't know if something similar exists already with such a general appliance. Or even if it is actually possible cause of the heavy complexity that philosophical concepts carry. But in general, I see it with a positive attitude.
Well at least with that way we could eliminate some falsifiable assumptions that is made in some philosophical concepts and focus more on cases that science "leaves" an open window for philosophical reasoning. It could be useful.
This question is easily resolved when we consider mind an unseparable part of matter, like electric charge in an electron. In that view we are an incredibly complicated material particle with a mental charge (which, in fact, is an incredibly complex electric charge, running around on the incredibly complex neuronal network of the brain). What exactly is that charge? No one knows. The gods out it in matter. Inside of a Planckian 3D hypersphere.
We don't know what it is, but we can feel it inside.
Both electrical and chemical.
In fact. A human particle with arms, legs, a face, charged with electric load. Reaching out to other such particles, while destroying a major part of the animal particles and flower particles. Breaking them apart to try to understand them.
And don't forget the 6 color charges. Which are maybe even more important to consciousness.