Philosophy is pseudoscience...

[Greta]

It's a subtle point - the interpretation of calculus can pertain to its practical function while the interpretations of QM more concern abstract notions of what reality is "actually" like, although the latter interpretations have the potential to open up or close subsequent lines of research - to become practical.

If only some interpretations have this potential for practical research (quantum computing I presume?), then there would be an empirical difference, and it would become science, not just philosophy. Not sure if quantum computing depends on a certain interpretation since they all have superposition states.

I hadn't thought of that, but I can see it now. Personally, I'm not keen on any of them. Rather, it seems to me that everything is both a particle and a wave, not just quanta, and the weirdness of quanta is probably about as weird and ephemeral as any other scale if observed from an equivalently huge standpoint.

[Eodnhoj7]

..according to a friend of mine.
We discussed several things but he keep claiming science and philosophy has no place togethers and basically equal philosophy to theology and philosophies to religions.
How do i argue to him that newton, Einstein and other people formulated their findings within views of the universe, as for example mechanism? That doing science is meaningless without a philosphy to propel one forward?

Context of the photo is that he thinks philosphy does not Try to understand reality whereas that it was science Does.
Translation of the photo:
Him: [philosophy]it Does not matter/is pointless
Me: What is your problem with philosophy?
Him: that it is only People’s projections of What they do not understand/comprehend
Him: and see connections which are not real
Him: it is pseudoscience

Do give me your thoughts, because i feel like this is actually a very common perspective at least from where i am from, and obviously not something i agere with

Philosophy, as the love of knowledge, is not limited to the scientific method however it is not against it either. The majority of the scientific method was founded through philosophical schools ranging from Pythagoras and Thales, in regards to mathematics as the foundation of many the sciences, to philosophers in the late middle ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It is strictly a technique, or perspective through which one observes, that is founded in circular and linear reasoning. The origins of its processes are founded with the nature of reasoning itself as abductive, deductive, and inductive. However its study of physical phenomena are strictly limited to those physical phenomena and do not extend strictly into the realms of logic alone, although both realities do reflect one another.

You have to keep in mind that when philosophy is accused of being religious, with religion fundamentally being "dogma" as blind belief, you have to understand who is saying this. Modern science is dogmatic in many respects:

Dark matter as "existing" however it is unseeable.

The scientific method being founded in a circular reasoning most scientists find contradictory to linear reasoning.

The scientific method having flaws in the advent of quantum mechanics (repeating the same steps does not result in the same results, unless practiced multiple times, ie. double slit experiment.)

Most modern science merely being unprovable theories.

The process of hypothesis being dependent upon metaphysics to some degree (ie. Einstein's view of space/time.)

etc.

Even under these circumstance the scientific process has not agreeable foundation for what constitutes ethics, and its processes suffer because of it where most "discoveries" are not truths about the nature world but rather a means to "change" physical reality...into what exactly? The scientific process cannot answer that question except under the term "whatever the financers want".

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/genie/pdf/Co ... cience.pdf

In these respects science has become a religion of transmutation rather than one predominantly obsessed with the discover of truth. A separate perspective may argue that science in itself has become a religion as religion offer this very same method of transmutation. Furthermore, science has not provided answers for these very same problems of what is the nature of ethics, ie a way to "be".

The simple truth is that most scientists, specifically physicists, are poor logicians because of their need to "see" rather than "reason". Science does not hold the answers to the material world precisely because it cannot transcend above the very same problem it seeks to understand. It see materiality through the lense of materiality and in these respects it is horribly blind.

It does not give answer to the question of the geometric and numeric forms, something its uses for definition, as it has not identified the "particle" which relate to form the very observation it requires to observe. In simple terms it is unable to self-reflect, and in many respects it seeks to establish the nature of "origins" without looking at its own.

In another respect, much of its evidence is dependent not on the evidence itself but rather how it is interpreted. Science, without logic and metaphysics, is not properly equipped to give accounts of interpretation. Modern sciences interpretation of physical phenomena differs very little than ancient readings of tea leaves, stars, or animal organs...the only difference is what they "read" for signs differs. Even the "sacrifice" has changed from a stone altar to a steel table, with the nature of sacrifice as a means to mediate a form of divinity in the search for knowledge and power. What has change is that instead of searching for answer from a higher power, the search for knowledge ends with a mediation to one's "ego".

It cannot give an account as to the very same nature of measurement it requires in order to exists, and is blind as to its own origins. Neither can it give a definition as to what "matter" is other than "stuff" which must be believed in, and yet it was founded on the study of the very same matter it knows nothing about. So what does it do, specifically physics? Redefined what it studies in an effort to maintain its own relevance.

Neither does it question the rational problems of the very same technologies it requires, as these technologlies in an effort to understand the world also inherently change it.

The only "real" science is metaphysics, in my opinion, as it deals with these very same foundations without trying to avoid them.

[uwot]

Philosophy is basically logic. What you do is start with a premise or two and try to create a logically valid argument based on them. In essence, it's story telling.

Would that that were true. However logic as used by philosophers is not a rigorous process of inference.

Well, this could come down to us failing to agree on what is meant by logic, rigour and philosophy.

While pure logic is rigorous, when applied to concepts, it loses its rigour.

That's because when people have tried; Russell's logical atomism, Tractatus era Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle spring to mind, what they are eventually compelled to concede is that pure logic simply cannot be rigorously applied to any language in which there is no consensus on the definition of concepts such as logic, rigour and philosophy.

Even syllogisms are not rigorous.

No, but anyone who has ambitions of being taken seriously as a philosopher needs to be handy with them.

If this were not so then one might have to conclude that a peanut butter sandwich was better than perfection.

Well, as I said, you could pick your premises to validly conclude that.

And yet many would-be philosophers believe in the sanctity of logic as though it is a God-given certainty.

And when they pull their finger out and actually study philosophy, they discover this is not true.

Hence the assertion that philosophy has similarities to religion.

I'm sure you could construct an argument that reaches that conclusion, but I don't think the initial premise is sound; it certainly isn't exhaustive. One difference is that religions generally have a catch all to cover anything that we cannot currently explain; some version of 'god works in mysterious ways'. There are some interpretations of quantum mechanics which make essentially the same claim, some physicists think Bell's theorem proves it. It's also the basic premise underpinning some versions of chaos theory.

So what you are left with is personal opinions and personal beliefs, even if those beliefs include the belief that one knows the one and only truth.

Well yes; there are plenty of people who confuse a valid conclusion with a sound one.

And people write these opinions as those they were unique truths, and so they end up writing BS.

Happens in science too. Phrenology. Eugenics. Loop quantum gravity, string theory, modified Newtonian mechanics or all the above. There is a lot more mathematics than applies to any existing physical system.

And the difficulty is that there is no known objective or logical process that enables the gems to de distinguished and separated from the BS.

Empiricism.

Hume's fork is the only suggested process, but it is ignored by most philosophers. But if it were not ignored 95% of philosophical writing would be 'cast into the flames'.

Well, Hume's fork is just pointing out that there is rationalism and empiricism. Which any philosopher worthy of the name already knows.

[Arising_uk]

... And yet many would-be philosophers believe in the sanctity of logic as though it is a God-given certainty. ...

Well to be fair it is a certainty that if anything exists, 'God' or not, then the rules of Logic apply to it.

[A_Seagull]

... And yet many would-be philosophers believe in the sanctity of logic as though it is a God-given certainty. ...

Well to be fair it is a certainty that if anything exists, 'God' or not, then the rules of Logic apply to it.

Not really.

Logic as a deductive system only applies to simple elements. What is perceived to exist in the world may not be simple elements. The so called rules of logic only applies to the labels for those things that are thought to exist, not the things themselves. And in any case logic only applies to conditionals: if... a then b. It says nothing about what actually is the case.

[Arising_uk]

Not really.

Logic as a deductive system only applies to simple elements. What is perceived to exist in the world may not be simple elements. The so called rules of logic only applies to the labels for those things that are thought to exist, not the things themselves. And in any case logic only applies to conditionals: if... a then b. It says nothing about what actually is the case.

I sort of agree with the last sentence as I'd be an Empiricist if pushed but to me I think it doesn't matter if the elements are simple or not as from my point of view Logic arises exactly from their being things and a world and as such it is impossible for things not to follow the laws of Logic. Of course to symbolise this you need thinking things.

You don't need the material conditional you can do it with 'not something or something else'.

[A_Seagull]

Not really.

Logic as a deductive system only applies to simple elements. What is perceived to exist in the world may not be simple elements. The so called rules of logic only applies to the labels for those things that are thought to exist, not the things themselves. And in any case logic only applies to conditionals: if... a then b. It says nothing about what actually is the case.

I sort of agree with the last sentence as I'd be an Empiricist if pushed but to me I think it doesn't matter if the elements are simple or not as from my point of view Logic arises exactly from their being things and a world and as such it is impossible for things not to follow the laws of Logic. Of course to symbolise this you need thinking things.

You don't need the material conditional you can do it with 'not something or something else'.

But where do these laws of logic come from? Are they empirical or rational? And if they are rational, what is their rational foundation?

[Eodnhoj7]

Not really.

Logic as a deductive system only applies to simple elements. What is perceived to exist in the world may not be simple elements. The so called rules of logic only applies to the labels for those things that are thought to exist, not the things themselves. And in any case logic only applies to conditionals: if... a then b. It says nothing about what actually is the case.

I sort of agree with the last sentence as I'd be an Empiricist if pushed but to me I think it doesn't matter if the elements are simple or not as from my point of view Logic arises exactly from their being things and a world and as such it is impossible for things not to follow the laws of Logic. Of course to symbolise this you need thinking things.

You don't need the material conditional you can do it with 'not something or something else'.

But where do these laws of logic come from? Are they empirical or rational? And if they are rational, what is their rational foundation?

My argument:

For how simplistic it may sound, certain laws may be premised upon but not limited to, a dimension (empirical or abstract phenomena) folding upon itself to propogate itself across time space, ie symmetry through frequency.

Another one may be a dimension mirroring itself through another dimension as an extension of that very same dimension with this mirroring process existing ad-finitum through 1d space. In simpler terms logic exists as a form of symmetry in itself being equated to "cause".

[Arising_uk]

But where do these laws of logic come from? ...

Where do things and the world come from? I don't think it matters for Logic, if there are things and a world then the laws of Logic arise by dint of there being things.

Are they empirical or rational? And if they are rational, what is their rational foundation?

Both I'd say although I'm not sure if either apply but if they do then empirical because you can test that they hold and rational because they are the grounding for Reason.