The ontological error of Philosophy
The ontological error of Philosophy
There is a mantra in the field of scientific inquiry: If you ask a stupid question - you will get a stupid answer.
I am of the opinion that all ontological questions in the form of "What is X?" are stupid questions.
We live in a dynamic universe. Change is the only constant is colloquial wisdom.
Time and time I observe that ontological questions lead to answers which are untestable and unfalsifiable. e.g not even wrong
This happens so frequently that I am convinced ontological inquiry is a procedural error in this universe.
So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"
I am of the opinion that all ontological questions in the form of "What is X?" are stupid questions.
We live in a dynamic universe. Change is the only constant is colloquial wisdom.
Time and time I observe that ontological questions lead to answers which are untestable and unfalsifiable. e.g not even wrong
This happens so frequently that I am convinced ontological inquiry is a procedural error in this universe.
So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
Well yeah, but then Einstein's ontological thesis that 'spacetime' is a 'material' substance that has mechanical properties is the hypothesis that informs general relativity. On the plus side, you could dismiss string theory on that analysis. I entirely agree that ontological claims that admit no conceivable falsification, 'there exists a god that moves in mysterious ways' for instance, have no scientific merit.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:11 pm There is a mantra in the field of scientific inquiry: If you ask a stupid question - you will get a stupid answer.
I am of the opinion that all ontological questions in the form of "What is X?" are stupid questions.
We live in a dynamic universe. Change is the only constant is colloquial wisdom.
Time and time I observe that ontological questions lead to answers which are untestable and unfalsifiable. e.g not even wrong
This happens so frequently that I am convinced ontological inquiry is a procedural error in this universe.
That's instrumentalism for you.
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
You have no idea what you are talking about, you are in the same classification as those you accuse of being poor philosophers, which I call "cozy chatters". It's only when you are a genius that you can do philosophy on a high lvl, else it just end up with the mental aptitude as a dog chasing its own tail.
Most who ask "what is X" need to know what it is before they will ask "what does X do?" It's a natural process of thought and you shouldn't attack it the way you do.
Neither is your approach better "how does X behave" what you should encourage people to do, is reading up on science, psychology, general news, Sun Tzu philosophy etc etc, but everybody are glaringly ignorant and will always ask others to provide them some half assed answers and explanations, so it ends up blind leading blind.
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
I have a trivial way to test your claim...
Please can you tell us what "science", "psychology" and "news" ARE without telling us what they DO?
e.g don't use any verbs to describe them.
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
And it's still a dynamic ontology. It DOES something - hence its mechanics.
Interesting example actually. Because for all the things string theory doesn't do, it does predict gravity. And that's all it does.
I am not sure how we'd falsify gravity?
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
Ok. So rather than...
...is it your opinion that none dynamic ontological questions are stupid?
Well, that and predict one dimensional 'strings' vibrating in at least ten 'dimensions'.
More to the point, how would we discover the 'graviton' that string theory predicts?
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
I am not nit-picking on categorization. If you want to categorize both of the following as ontological questions - whatever.
"What does X do?" is a useful question.
"What is X?" is a dead-end question.
e.g "What is science?"
So the question is still being answered by what science DOES.the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
But to answer your question directly: Yes. Non-dynamic questions in a dynamic reality seem rather moot.
Behaviour, action, interaction - it conveys far more information about any "ontology".
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
As it happens, I wrote an article on Thomas Kuhn which appears in the current edition of Philosophy Now.https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 Kuhn made the point that whether or not it is a dead end question "What is X?" is a typical feature of most 'paradigms' that scientists actually work within. Since 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' was published in 1962, scientists have wised up to the situation, as can be seen in this clip of Richard Feynman. At around the 3 minute mark Feynman talks about the "philosophies" - the 'What X is' - pointing out that they are simply tools that allow people to explore ideas more quickly than doing the sums or the experiments. (Oops. Forgot the link. Here ya go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k&t=74s )
Yup. As I said:
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
So, not so much "How does X behave?", but "How should X behave?", yes?
Still, me, I would certainly want to know what is this X you're all talking about...
EB
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
???
Where's the problem exactly?
See?Science n.
1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena: new advances in science and technology.
That's all essentially irrelevant to the issue, of course, but you've yet again proved you're abysmally ignorant.
You're also a triple idiot since you can't even think of checking a dictionary whether your question won't reflex badly on your mental abilities.
EB
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
Thank you for proving my point. You are telling me what science DOES not what science IS.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:55 am 1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena[/b]: new advances in science and technology.
observation. verb
identification verb
description verb
investigation verb
explanation verb
I know the dictionary says they are "nouns", but the dictionary is wrong. The dictionary makes the exact same ontological error I am trying to point out.
Noun. a word used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things.
Observation is not a THING. Observation is something you DO. It's a process/activity.
Identification is not a THING. Identification is something you DO. It's a process/activity.
description is not a THING. Description is something you DO. It's a process/activity.
etc. etc.
Appeal to authority.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:55 am You're also a triple idiot since you can't even think of checking a dictionary whether your question won't reflex badly on your mental abilities.
No wonder you can't think for yourself. You keep outsourcing your faculties for thought to a dictionary. Silly logocentrist.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
LOL.
Science IS observation, observation IS a fact, a fact IS etc ...observation
a. The act of observing: observations of a rare bird.
b. The power or faculty of observing.
c. The fact of being observed: kept the suspect under observation.
EB
Re: The ontological error of Philosophy
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:46 am observation
a. The act of observing: observations of a rare bird.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:46 am observation
a. The act of observing: observations of a rare bird.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:46 am observation
a. The act of observing: observations of a rare bird.
So observation is a verb then. Just like I said.
Thank you for making my argument.
What does science DO? Science observes.