HexHammer wrote:Dude, the reason science has replaced philosophy is because the concept of "irrefutable evidence" your "evidence" has not double blind features...
Mr Hammer, can you give an example of 'double blind features' as they pertain to sciences other than medicine? You know, physics and chemistry and stuff.
While you're at it, could you clarify how science has replaced philosophy in the treatment of say, ethics, aesthetics, politics, religion and in fact science? Is there a science of science in the way there is a philosophy of science?
HexHammer wrote:Dude, the reason science has replaced philosophy is because the concept of "irrefutable evidence" your "evidence" has not double blind features, it doesn't exactly in detail describe the things that makes philosophy so good.
As I've said, other students can get top grades without philosophy so your arguments are null and void in itself.
But it does as not all the students take the classes and they can compare results and with results from schools that are not implementing the classes as currently they are not mandatory in english schools, they can also compare with the students previous results. It's also not about top-grades as those who get top-grades get them for a number of factors not least being the parents influence. It's about just helping the students to think rather than just work to the tests. What makes philosophical training useful is, as you agreed, having such discussions in the first place and that philosophy has the most interesting discussions, this also allows the teacher to have a ready source of material to discuss.
p.s.
Please don't call me 'dude' as I'm not an American and neither are you.
Your philosophy approach seems more like a placebo pill, more than anything else, you still haven't specified anything about this philosophy exactly how it enhances students, but merely guesses.
HexHammer wrote:Dude, the reason science has replaced philosophy is because the concept of "irrefutable evidence" your "evidence" has not double blind features...
Mr Hammer, can you give an example of 'double blind features' as they pertain to sciences other than medicine? You know, physics and chemistry and stuff.
While you're at it, could you clarify how science has replaced philosophy in the treatment of say, ethics, aesthetics, politics, religion and in fact science? Is there a science of science in the way there is a philosophy of science?
Double blind test are usually used when humans are the subject for testing, physics and chemistry there humans are usually not the subjects for testing, thus you must have other independent scientists to verify the result, thus either confirm or deny it.
Do you use philosophers to confirm a person has been traumatized by this and that? No, there you use shrinks, thus other shrinks in form of professors and associate Professors to find new ways of how to treat people and what to do with them.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that of most time I hear a philosopher talk about ethics, it's usually superstitious and weird ..and in short ..complete garbage that sounds good on paper, but fail miserably in real life.
HexHammer wrote:Double blind test are usually used when humans are the subject for testing, physics and chemistry there humans are usually not the subjects for testing, thus you must have other independent scientists to verify the result, thus either confirm or deny it.
Then this isn't:
HexHammer wrote:Dude, the reason science has replaced philosophy is because the concept of "irrefutable evidence" your "evidence" has not double blind features...
Which would you rather we believe?
HexHammer wrote:Maybe it's just me, but I find that of most time I hear a philosopher talk about ethics, it's usually superstitious and weird ..and in short ..complete garbage that sounds good on paper, but fail miserably in real life.
It's probably is just you, Mr Hammer, but if you can cite an example of a philosopher of ethics that has disturbed you as you suggest, we might understand you better.
HexHammer wrote:Double blind test are usually used when humans are the subject for testing, physics and chemistry there humans are usually not the subjects for testing, thus you must have other independent scientists to verify the result, thus either confirm or deny it.
Then this isn't:
HexHammer wrote:Dude, the reason science has replaced philosophy is because the concept of "irrefutable evidence" your "evidence" has not double blind features...
Which would you rather we believe?
HexHammer wrote:Maybe it's just me, but I find that of most time I hear a philosopher talk about ethics, it's usually superstitious and weird ..and in short ..complete garbage that sounds good on paper, but fail miserably in real life.
It's probably is just you, Mr Hammer, but if you can cite an example of a philosopher of ethics that has disturbed you as you suggest, we might understand you better.
Dear uwot I just explained it, and you don't comprehend a very simple explanation, you see it's situational when different scientific methods are applied.
HexHammer wrote:Dude, the reason science has replaced philosophy is because the concept of "irrefutable evidence" your "evidence" has not double blind features, it doesn't exactly in detail describe the things that makes philosophy so good.
As I've said, other students can get top grades without philosophy so your arguments are null and void in itself.
Hey Dude, science has not replaced philosophy. Science still relies on philosophy. Philosophy is part of science as it is part of politics, ethics, aesthetics, and many other areas of our lives.
I've told you already that you lack of basic education makes you utterly unqualified to understand any of this.
I asked you what your education was and you told me you predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall. Well fucking dah.
Of course I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US, science isn't taught with philosophy, not even in college. I did study philosophy in college as an elective.
To add, in my daily life, I've yet to encounter someone who showed an interest in philosophy. Also, to add, science is taught on an empirical basis over here.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Of course I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US, science isn't taught with philosophy, not even in college. I did study philosophy in college as an elective.
To add, in my daily life, I've yet to encounter someone who showed an interest in philosophy. Also, to add, science is taught on an empirical basis over here.
PhilX
Empiricism was invented by philosophy.
The best scientists are philosophers too, as at a higher level you have to do more than just gather data and describe what they find. Higher physics is a metaphysical proposition.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Of course I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US, science isn't taught with philosophy, not even in college (I did study philosophy in college as an elective).
To add, in my daily life, I've yet to encounter someone who showed an interest in philosophy. Also, to add, science is taught on an empirical basis over here.
PhilX
Empiricism was invented by philosophy.
The best scientists are philosophers too, as at a higher level you have to do more than just gather data and describe what they find. Higher physics is a metaphysical proposition.
According to my online definition about empiricism:
"the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume." Clearly derived from British philosophers, but the philosophical underpinnings to science are not in the mainstream here in the US as that's not entered into discussion. So you seem to be suggesting that the philosophy of science resides in the ivory tower of education.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Of course I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US, science isn't taught with philosophy, not even in college (I did study philosophy in college as an elective).
To add, in my daily life, I've yet to encounter someone who showed an interest in philosophy. Also, to add, science is taught on an empirical basis over here.
PhilX
Empiricism was invented by philosophy.
The best scientists are philosophers too, as at a higher level you have to do more than just gather data and describe what they find. Higher physics is a metaphysical proposition.
According to my online definition about empiricism:
"the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume." Clearly derived from British philosophers, but the philosophical underpinnings to science are not in the mainstream here in the US as that's not entered into discussion. So you seem to be suggesting that the philosophy of science resides in the ivory tower of education.
PhilX
Every single American scientist from Benjamin Frankyn: a personal friend of DAVID HUME, to date has adopted the theories of Berkeley Hume and Locke. Locke practically invented the USA for fuck's sake.
Just because you know shit about philosophy is not evidence that the US is ignorant of philosophy.
Empiricism did not simply begin and end with the British Empiricists (so-called), but has its roots in Epicurus and Aristotle and was employed by Newton, Gallieo, Humphrey Davey, Josef Priestly (who moved to America), and had further contributions to so many thinkers it is impossible to list a tiny percentage of them.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Every single American scientist from Benjamin Frankyn: a personal friend of DAVID HUME, to date has adopted the theories of Berkeley Hume and Locke. Locke practically invented the USA for fuck's sake.
Just because you know shit about philosophy is not evidence that the US is ignorant of philosophy.
Empiricism did not simply begin and end with the British Empiricists (so-called), but has its roots in Epicurus and Aristotle and was employed by Newton, Gallieo, Humphrey Davey, Josef Priestly (who moved to America), and had further contributions to so many thinkers it is impossible to list a tiny percentage of them.
That's all well and fine, but as I said with respect to the US, while science here may have had its roots in empiricism doesn't mean that philosophy is strong in the US (to add, it's a very strange statement you have made about Locke practically inventing the US). For further accuracy, I'm making these corrections: Benjamin Franklin, not Benjamin Frankyn; Humphrey Davy, not Humphrey Davey; Joseph Priestly; not Josef Priestly; Galileo, not Gallieo (and you claim to be degreed).
PhilX
Last edited by Philosophy Explorer on Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Every single American scientist from Benjamin Frankyn: a personal friend of DAVID HUME, to date has adopted the theories of Berkeley Hume and Locke. Locke practically invented the USA for fuck's sake.
Just because you know shit about philosophy is not evidence that the US is ignorant of philosophy.
Empiricism did not simply begin and end with the British Empiricists (so-called), but has its roots in Epicurus and Aristotle and was employed by Newton, Gallieo, Humphrey Davey, Josef Priestly (who moved to America), and had further contributions to so many thinkers it is impossible to list a tiny percentage of them.
That's all well and fine, but as I said with respect to the US, while science here may have had its roots in empiricism doesn't mean that philosophy is strong in the US (to add, it's a very strange statement you have made about Locke practically inventing the US). For further accuracy, I'm making these corrections: Benjamin Franklin, not Benjamin Franklin; Humphrey Davy, not Humphrey Davey; Joseph Priestly; not Josef Priestly; Galileo, not Gallieo (and you claim to be degreed).
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Of course I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US, science isn't taught with philosophy, not even in college. I did study philosophy in college as an elective.
To add, in my daily life, I've yet to encounter someone who showed an interest in philosophy. Also, to add, science is taught on an empirical basis over here.
PhilX
Empiricism was invented by philosophy.
The best scientists are philosophers too, as at a higher level you have to do more than just gather data and describe what they find. Higher physics is a metaphysical proposition.
Not quite, philosophers doesn't test their results like scientists, thus philosophers only deals with empirical data thus can't have their findings tested, thus it's no different than medieval superstition when their empirical findings wasn't verified.
