What are the philosophical equivalents of the laws of nature?
Hi. I am new here and this post is my first taste.
When I read or discuss a bit of philosophy I become frustrated with the way people quote a philosopher as if the philosopher has the answer. An equally questionable refuting quote is tossed back. There is never a shred of data, worldly evidence of universality, or even revolutionary insight. Is philosophy a professors version of drunken ranting in a bar? Science has fundamental laws and principles by which we obtain a 0.05 answer. What is the philosophical equivalent?
Thanks
When I read or discuss a bit of philosophy I become frustrated with the way people quote a philosopher as if the philosopher has the answer. An equally questionable refuting quote is tossed back. There is never a shred of data, worldly evidence of universality, or even revolutionary insight. Is philosophy a professors version of drunken ranting in a bar? Science has fundamental laws and principles by which we obtain a 0.05 answer. What is the philosophical equivalent?
Thanks
Comments (39)
Quoting a philosopher does not mean that your answer is correct because of that. It only means that you subscribe to a particular school of thought.
For example, if you look at the schools of thought in the philosophy of mathematics, you will find that the top nine schools are: Platonism, Logicism, Formalism, Conventionalism, Intuitionism, Structuralism, Embodied mind, Fictionalism, and Social constructivism.
There is no definitive, philosophical answer as to the nature of mathematics:
It is a profound puzzle that on the one hand mathematical truths seem to have a compelling inevitability, but on the other hand the source of their "truthfulness" remains elusive. Investigations into this issue are known as the foundations of mathematics program.
So, we have tentative answers, each represented by a school, which each have their followers.
Quoting Denovo Meme
The philosophy of science has its own schools of thought, which argue about the nature of science:
The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.
Quoting Denovo Meme
Concerning the concept of "the philosophy of philosophy", i.e. the metaphilosophy:
Metaphilosophy (sometimes called philosophy of philosophy) is "the investigation of the nature of philosophy". Its subject matter includes the aims of philosophy, the boundaries of philosophy, and its methods.
There is the following problem:
Nicholas Bunnin and Jiyuan Yu write that the separation of first- from second-order study has lost popularity as philosophers find it hard to observe the distinction. As evidenced by these contrasting opinions, debate persists as to whether the evaluation of the nature of philosophy is 'second order philosophy' or simply 'plain philosophy'.
The situation is a bit like with metamathematics, which is just an ordinary theory in mathematics.
Metamathematics is the study of mathematics itself using mathematical methods. This study produces metatheories, which are mathematical theories about other mathematical theories.
Quite a few people object to calling Hilbert Calculi or Gödel's incompleteness theorems "metamathematical"; or at least drop the "meta" prefix. These theories do not feel different from other mathematics. They use exactly the same method. So, they are often referred to as just mathematical.
We could say that for the function meta(X), which maps the domain of knowledge onto itself, the choices X=philosophy and X=mathematics are fixed points, because meta(philosophy)=philosophy and meta(mathematics)=mathematics. This is absolutely not the case for science, however. Furthermore, this is generally not the case for any other discipline.
If the domain of knowledge has exactly two fixed points, then according to Lefschetz fixed-point theorem its Euler characteristic is also two, and therefore, the domain of knowledge would somehow look like a polyhedron.
I don't think there is one. Maybe universal rationality (rationality common to everyone) is as close as you get.
This the problem though. When someone, who has obviously studied philosophy comes here to start a thread, the chances are it's a question that's already been asked. Then there is always someone like you spewing out what Google would come up with, after Denovo Meme Specifically said that they weren't interested in past rhetoric. Making your entire post pointless.
There is no point is having a forum if all we do is dwel on the past. Should we call it a pastrum?
Not that I think we should ignore the old schools, but at least assume we are all already fully aware and do not need a lesson in philosophy 101.
How are we ever going to know what to do in the future, if we do not pay respect to what was done in the past? We learn through experience. And if we can learn from the experience of others, that's even better because we can avoid making the same mistakes that someone else made.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Science is done in a certain social context, with certain underlying assumptions, in a certain historical development, in a certain community, with certain political underpinnings, in certain economic context, etc. The aims and goals of the sciences, the rules of the science language-game, the root of empirical investigation, epistemology vs. metaphysics of what is being investigated, the aims of the experiment/observation, how to place it in the context of what came before, how the experiments should be interpreted, etc are all rife for philosophical investigation. Science is founded on and amenable to metaphysics/epistemology, philosophy of science/math, philosophy of language, and even ethical/political philosophy. Philosophy helps pose questions and offer analysis at all foundational levels surrounding the sciences. The language-game of philosophy doesn't work in fixed laws, though it sometimes uses logical proofs. Science may be bound to data from experiments and observation but to claim that philosophy must follow these rules, is to make a category error. Even debating what is science and philosophy is not data-based. The argument is a non-starter from not understanding the difference in where the two differ and where they are similar.
The fact that people are observing "laws of nature" means there was a whole underpinning in the first place that takes/took place in a philosophical context. The philosophical schools of empiricism in the European Renaissance, the idea of human reason in the Enlightenment era, etc. lead the way to constructing the foundations for what counts as empirical investigation and thus, for these "laws" to be discovered/interpreted by a science community in the first place.
The gist of all this is that philosophy surrounds, supports, finds critical problems with the very science you seem to pit as "against" philosophy or somehow separate from it. Science has been in the philosophy family, the whole time though. Though philosophy can use empirical data, it is not bounded by it as the sciences are. However, even this is a wrong way to say it, as what "counts" as empirical data can also be philosophized and interpreted in many ways.
"Platonism, Logicism, Formalism, Conventionalism, Intuitionism, Structuralism, Embodied mind, Fictionalism, and Social constructivism [et al.]"
This sounds like a joke - joke about the consistency in any tree of religions you care to name. On the other hand, take engineers: mechanical; electrical; chemical; civil; aeronautical; genetic et cetera. These fields all rely on the same empirically proven laws and principles. My original post was an appeal for someone to say what philosophy uses to gain credibility?
"Metaphilosophy (sometimes called philosophy of philosophy) is "the investigation of the nature of philosophy"
and
The philosophy of science has its own schools of thought, which argue about the nature of science: The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science."
Investigating what science is and what philosophy might meta-be does not help Joe Average to put food on the table. Joe wants to know how to use science and philosophy to pay the electricity bill.
I really do wish to know why we should listen to philosophers. What is their credibility score.
Here's a question, what's the point of using electricity in the first place? Why engineer all this engineering?
If you give any answer, no matter how "self-evident", it is still an argument that needs justification. That is where the philosophy resides. Philosophy is more a mindset of critical analysis, informed by others who have posed/tried to solve the same questions and adding to that dialogue (i.e. a dialectic of sorts).
There is a true answer to the nature/origen of math. If there is no definitive philosophical answer, perhaps it's because no one has gotten it right... yet.
Really? Mathematics is tricks with values and its origin is the from prefrontal cortex. Where's my Prize?
I get it. When we sweat a PhD, is evidence that we can think. However, what I want to know Is, is philosophy redundant. Has science eclipsed it. Has religion raped it. Has it become a parasite on humanity. Personally I do not think so. But it is looking scabby. I will keep asking the question: Should listen to philosophers. What is their credibility score?
I just think it funny, because the very question you pose is philosophical and not scientific :razz: .
Quoting Denovo Meme
Again, there are so many assumptions here. What makes something a parasite? What makes something not a parasite..Again, by even parsing the solution to this, you are philosophizing.
Quoting Denovo Meme
That question doesn't even make sense. So I made a case that philosophy, in its way, "beget" the science you say has "real" credibility, so there's that. But, what is credibility to you? Again, even trying to answer this question becomes just another philosophical inquiry and yet another person's idea of what is "good", what is "real", what is "proper" (all philosophical questions).
If you look at the footnotes in the page on the philosophy of engineering, you will see a good number of books on the subject. So, you can safely say that if X is an abstraction -- such as X=engineering -- then there will invariably exist a philosophyOf(X).
The philosophy of engineering is an emerging discipline that considers what engineering is, what engineers do, and how their work affects society, and thus includes aspects of ethics and aesthetics, as well as the ontology, epistemology, etc. that might be studied in, for example, the philosophy of science.
Quoting Denovo Meme
I do not believe that gaining mainstream credibility is much of a goal in philosophy. It is simply not for everybody. Philosophy has always been an activity more or less confined to a particular intellectual elite. You either like it or you don't.
Quoting Denovo Meme
Why would philosophers be interested in how Joe wants to pay his electricity bill? There is not much "meta" to this question. So, it does not seem like a particularly legitimate topic in philosophy. There are so many subjects that a person can study. Why would our electricity-bill Joe even want to study philosophy?
Sorry, I don't have much to say to electricity-bill Joe.
Quoting Denovo Meme
Well, then don't.
People, who join this forum, do so because they/we like discussing philosophy. That means that this is not the best place to hang out for people who do NOT like discussing philosophy.
You sound like someone who goes to a football club in order to tell people that you do not like football. Why are you even wasting your time doing that? People who go to a football stadium to watch football, simply like football. If you don't, you can always go to the tennis court and watch things there instead. Football club members do not need to justify why they like their sports. They just do.
Be positive and pick something you like. Being negative and picking something you do not like, will not get you anywhere.
You can tell electricity-bill Joe that it is the same in business. Would he go to apply for a job at a widget factory, insisting that he does not like widgets, and that he thinks that making widgets is a waste of time?
The very first thing that electricity-bill Joe needs to do, is to be open minded, try to be a bit more likeable, and be receptive for possible opportunities that may arise wherever he goes.
— Denovo Meme
Here's a question, what's the point of using electricity in the first place? Why engineer all this engineering?
Schopen, dude, I asked a question. Yes? Philosophy is about asking questions and trying to answer them. When I ask a question like, "Why should we listen to philosophers?" you have no business asking me why do electricity? It is worse than rhetorical, its obfuscation.
Not when it's trying to make a point that is answering your question :roll: . It's an answer by demonstration....
The philosophy of engineering is an emerging discipline
I hope not, engineering is getting on just fine by overlapping with related professions.
My original post was an appeal for someone to say what philosophy uses to gain credibility?
— Denovo Meme
I do not believe that gaining mainstream credibility is much of a goal in philosophy.
That is the saddest thing I have read in months. I want philosophy in schools age 5 to 12. What would Socrates think? Tsk tsk tsk
Why would philosophers be interested in how Joe wants to pay his electricity bill?
They would want to know because they concerned for peoples' well being. Apparently you are not concerned.
I really do wish to know why we should listen to philosophers.
— Denovo Meme
Well, then don't.
Well, I won't be listening to you
... this is not the best place to hang out for people who do NOT like discussing philosophy. Being negative and picking something you do not like, will not get you anywhere. ... try to be a bit more likeable, and be receptive for possible opportunities that may arise wherever he goes.
Be quite sure, you do not know me, yet you surmise too much about me. Your IQ might be 2 standard deviations up, but your EQ is two down. Please do not speak to me or quote me again. - Matthew
First off, rephrasing my questions in such ways, is not a great start to answering them, but I'll indulge your odd idiosyncrasy here, if just to clarify what was misinterpreted:
Quoting Denovo Meme
I simply never said nor implied that. I simply asked a question that was philosophical in nature as to the relevance of engineering, because one of philosophy's main "credible" contributions is not assuming anything, whether it seem self-evident, "practical" or otherwise. One of the main points, is no ideas must be taken without justification.
Quoting Denovo Meme
I didn't say that, but it also depends what you mean by credibility. If we mean credible as a method of inquiry and a body of study, then I would be a personal advocate of philosophical inquiry as there is a wealth of inquiry/and various avenues of solutions to draw from regarding "what is", "what is true", "what is good/right", "what is evidence", and the list goes on. If you have thousands of years of dialogue stretching back to the pre-Socratics that have covered these big questions (and have posed many new ones along the way of course), why would you ignore this body of inquiry and possible solutions? If nothing, else you can compare your own thoughts to them and inform your own justifications and understanding. Also, philosophy since at least Aristotle, has used logical argumentation as its foundation, often using symbolic logic to formalize arguments. This creates a much more analytical/detailed approach that can inform one's ability to present an argument, provide logical cases, and generally enhance critical skills.
Quoting Denovo Meme
Wow, you missed the point of that question. No, the point is that there are so many assumptions with just making electricity in the first place. I can make an existential argument- if life was just making electricity and producing goods, and ephemeral pleasures, would that make a "good life"? What if no one asked big questions? In fact, would things like electricity or relativity be created by scientists if they limited their inquiries to the purely practical? Einstein for example, was very philosophically oriented, and used theoretical approaches to answer questions. This approach was later experimentally verified and used for practical applications by other inventive people who may also asked "bigger questions".
I can also say, why should Joe get help with the electrical bill? This is a social problem right? Social problems are inherently philosophical... Should people get help from government, private industry, no one at all? If any of these answers are correct why? All people deserve X,Y, Z things, why?
Also, I literally meant, why create electricity? If people did not exist in the first place, we would not need any tools/engineering. What is the point of putting more people into the world, to make more electricity? That is self-refuting.. If you say to discover more engineering principles, then this begs the question, and just shows our bias for some set of values. See what I mean, NOTHING should be taken at face value. That is the philosophical approach. To take things as just the way they are presented to you, would be uncritical and non-self-reflective. Those are maybe some of the credible contributions philosophy can bring to society and individuals- people who can think critically for themselves and pose big questions.
Edit: Oh, you may have been answering someone else yet mentioned me before you did so..My suggestion is to simply quote the person you wanted to reference, so people don't get confused who you are replying to.
This is a great post. I have posted similar thoughts many times, but I don't think I've done it as well as you have.
This is a good thread. In the past, I've shared your frustration with people who are quick to drop philosopher's names as if that answers any question. It's true, a lot of it is showing off, but over the years I've been on the forum, I've gained a lot of respect for people who can use the work of other philosophers as signposts to lead them to the truth. The metaphor I've used in the past is that of a tool box. It's fun and impressive to watch smart, thoughtful people approach a problem, open up their box of philosophy tools, and set to work. Pull out a little Kant, turn this. Take out some Schopenhauer and plug it in there.
But - for better or worse, it's not the way I do things, although I do have a few favorite sources. Here's a quote I've found very helpful. I use it all the time. It's from Kafka:
You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait. Do not even wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.
Here's some plagiarism from a previous post of mine:
This summarizes my understanding of the proper goals and methods of philosophy. When I read this, I have this image of me sitting in an empty room, maybe 10 feet wide by 25 feet long. It looks like a school corridor – concrete block walls painted yellow, white ceiling, gray linoleum floor, ceiling lighting. No windows, no furniture, one grey metal door at the end. I’ll add a chair, I don’t want to have to sit on the floor. There, alone, I have everything I need to figure out the nature of reality and the meaning of existence. The ultimate lazy person’s philosophy. No need to read or study, just watch. Don’t even watch.
Let's talk about science for a minute. What is it? (from various places on the web).
Let's pull out a couple of words I think are important - "systematic" and "methodology." What is the system, the methodology, by which science operates? Well, we call it the scientific method and it involves, as the definitions indicate, observation and experimentation along with a bunch of other stuff. The scientific method is not science, it's how we pursue knowledge and understanding, i.e. epistemology, i.e. philosophy.
Thank you! I appreciate that :grin: .
If you read what a philosopher says, and it makes sense to you, this itself is an attestation to the philosopher's credibility. If it doesn't make sense, the opposite is the case. So, you should listen only to those philosophers who make sense to you.
OMG. A few years ago I was rummaging through old boxes from 5 decades ago. They were full of old school books full of old memories. I found a full page which had one full sentence - in pencil. It was headed "What I Did On the Holidays." I had written "I sat in my mind and wondered what I was sitting on."
I have never studied philosophy. I read occasional popular articles that purport to be philosophical. However, after a life of engineering and science gave me a sledge hammer and Occums Razor, I realised that philosophy, as some people use it, has no tools. It has lotsa sports equipment for people to play GOTCHA. And when the fans have left and the lights are turned off, the homeless are still lying under the bridge.
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
The pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Let's pull out a couple of words I think are important - "systematic" and "methodology." What is the system, the methodology, by which science operates? Well, we call it the scientific method and it involves, as the definitions indicate, observation and experimentation along with a bunch of other stuff. The scientific method is not science, it's how we pursue knowledge and understanding, i.e. epistemology, i.e. philosophy.[/quote]
Yes. I understand that.
In my dotage I have gone from undergrad teaching to the more rewarding school teaching of science. It is so refreshing to be unburdened by jargon and trivial, but career sustaining caveats. What you have written is fine. But compare it with the crystal clear, elegant brevity of:
"Science is the things we found out and how we found them out."
Now. I found this quote.
"This article articulates a fundamental crisis of disciplinary philosophy—its lack of disciplinary self?consciousness and the skeptical problems this generates—and, through that articulation, exemplifies a means of mitigating its force. Disciplinary philosophy organizes itself as a producer of specialized knowledge, with the apparatus of journals, publication requirements, and other professional standards, but it cannot agree on what constitutes knowledge, progress, or value, and evinces ignorance of its history and alternatives. This situation engenders a skepticism that threatens the legitimacy of disciplinary philosophy. The article proposes a response to this skepticism, rooted in the conditions that philosophers evince a specific kind of awareness of their own activity and its professional and cultural location, demonstrate this awareness by articulating it in the practice of philosophy itself, and recognize that precisely such articulation lies at the core of the Socratic idea of philosophy as a form of self?knowledge."
So, dudes, what is going on on this site? Is there a crisis?
I also am an engineer. And, sure, a lot of philosophy is crap. Most? Probably. All I can say is, if you can't find something of value in it, try something else. I don't really have that choice. My engineering career has all been about epistemology. Trying to understand the nature of our world is what I do, whether I want to or not. That's why I find the Kafka quote so funny and powerful - we don't need philosophers or this forum. We can do it all ourselves, alone in a room.
I don't read a lot of philosophy either, but I have found things in my reading and here on the forum that have helped me clarify my thinking. That's an exhilarating thing.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The problem here is that there are no boundaries! Enquiry extends to infinity. In the real world, my world, you gotta make a decision.
What are the laws and principles of philosophy?
That's where I live too.
Quoting Denovo Meme
Except that's not what science is. You can't leave out "systematic," it's what makes it science instead of "stuff I know." It's what makes the scientific method philosophy.
Quoting Denovo Meme
No crisis. I think of it this way. I read a lot - a little philosophy, science, science fiction, other odds and ends. I used to love movies and TV. A lot of those things are crap too, but if I started now and read 12 hours a day for the rest of my life, I could never read 1% of the worthwhile, high quality, moving books in English that have been written. I couldn't even start to keep up with what is written every day.
That's the secret - don't read the crap. If you can't tell what's good and what's crap, it's your fault, not the craps.
Would you say that to a kid? Perhaps discernment comes from formal education and informal culture.
I disagree. The thing that gives science it's power, makes it science, is that it's systematic when most human thought isn't. Science is stuff we've come know based on the results of applying the scientific method. It's also more - It's stuff we know, how we know it, and how certain we are about it.
Would it make sense to change "methodology" to "formal methodology" in the definition?
Quoting Denovo Meme
Sure, which isn't to say I wouldn't offer my opinions on what I thought was worthwhile and what wasn't. But I'd tell her that, when push comes to shove, she is responsible. She has to sit in the room by herself watching reality roll around on the floor.
It might interest you to know that Sir Isaac Newton considered his work to be philosophy.
Been thinking about this more. Philosophy has lots of laws and principles:
Problem - they're all bullshit except the second one.
On the other hand, science doesn't really have any laws either. A law describes how something has to act or should act. Scientific laws only describe how the world generally tends to act under certain circumstances. They describe. They don't cause or explain.
And there is growing evidence that they may be local and time bound - iow not really laws, but patterns.
Such as, how do you model individual clouds or people. Generalities are easy because it ignores most of reality.
Could you expand on that, I didn't get it.
In meteorology, for example, they cannot determine what is going to happen in a specific location, only a general trend over a generally large area. They can only do this because the science ignores individuality, and so ignores most of reality. Does that make sense?
That's sounds like a battle of appeals to authority. IOW philosophy has a critique of that kind of communication - we could call this critique or fallacy something similar to a natural law - which can aid one in dealing with such things in scientific discussions, philosophy, politics, wherever.
Quoting Denovo MemeThere are certainly philosophical works that include data. And philsophical discussions online will sometimes include data. Other types of discussions in philosophy can't use data.
Quoting Denovo MemeI assume that was an example that number. Science is in fact a product of philosophical thinking, at least at many points in its history there have been philosophical discussions, by scientists, by generalists, by philosophers, about epistemology. And this has aided (and perhaps sometimes blocked) scientific research and strategies. If you are having a discussion over free will vs. determinism, I am not sure where a numerical value can come in. If you are analysing the language use in a position, again, I don't see where number values come in. It's a bit like saying that your literary studies didn't deal much with chemicals. These are different kinds of truths being sought after, often at a more abstract level then science is aiming for in specific research.
Yes, I get that. But then science would also say what clouds are made of, how the water gets up there and all sorts of things that help us understand individuals. What are human bones made of? What are the smallest parts of water made of? Why am I myopic? HOw can that bug walk on water? I am not contradicting what you said, perhaps, but it is not like there is only information about general categories and none about individuals in science. Much of science will say what all individuals in a group are like, for example.
And they must do this out of necessity. Medicine is another example. Trends are found and treatments are based on these trends instead of treating the individual’s unique physiology. Although, it would be easier to treat an individual as an individual in medicine than to, say, determine what a particular cloud is going to do. It wouldn’t even be worth the effort to determine what a cloud is going to do. It would be worth the effort to find treatments for the individual, but it is not economical or even viable in practice.