Only TWO - ??
The question is less of purpose but rather how is it not intertwined in the basic fabric of all knowledge? Phd means Doctor of Philosophy. What the sciences are, by admission of the academic title alone, is philosophy.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:48 pmWhat purpose is philosophy fit for?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:32 pmFalse, as all phenomenon as existing having positive and negative qualities where they are always fit for one purpose but not for another. In these respects all phenomenon are meaningful considering a loop occurs where:
1. A is fit for B, but not C.
2. C is fit for D but requires B.
3. A is fit for C in the context of the whole progression but not the relative localized position in its specific time.
The question of fitness is defined by connection in these respects, where the connection in the above example is strictly a linear progression which sets the premise for evolution as the process of time.
Philosophy at its root is "reflection" by nature, where patterns are observed as repeating and the observation of these patterns sets the grounds for knowledge as a pattern in itself.
You are conflating science with academia.
PhD also means "I have demonstrated ability to work crazy hours for years at a time for little to no pay and I am about to catch a wake up call that my academic credentials don't mean anything in practice."
And reflection is not a group activity. So maybe Aristotle was right: know thyself.
Philosophy is basically story telling. Since philosophy of science is my field, I'll stick to that. So whereas science examines phenomena, and is mostly concerned with generating mathematical models that describe the phenomena accurately, the job of philosophy is to provide conceptual models (paradigms in Kuhn's terms) that can be explored and developed logically. So for instance, Einstein's concept of warped spacetime as the cause of gravity is philosophy, while his field equations are science.
So if a model accurately describes a phenomenon then it is fit for purpose.uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:01 pmPhilosophy is basically story telling. Since philosophy of science is my field, I'll stick to that. So whereas science examines phenomena, and is mostly concerned with generating mathematical models that describe the phenomena accurately.
Conversely - if a model doesn't accurately describe a phenomenon then it's not fit for purpose.
This begs the Protagorean question: What is the unit-measure for 'accuracy' and what is it calibrated against?
Well, Newton's inverse square law was perfectly adequate for getting men to the Moon and back. So it is fit for that purpose. Your "unit-measure for accuracy" depends on the level of accuracy your purpose requires.
Because if the question is "How accurate is Newton's inverse square law?"
The answer 42 doesn't seem sufficient.
42 is only a quantity. It requires a meaningful unit. 42 what?
Further - you seem to have avoided the question. You asserted that Newton's inverse square law was adequate. So you ended up answering a question of adequacy even though I was asking you a question of accuracy.
Newton's inverse square law may have been adequate for the purpose of getting to the Moon and back, but was it accurate for the purpose of describing phenomena?
42 anythings you divide by 42. That's how scientific units work.
Yeah, but I made the point
Well, phenomena are only phenomena if they are witnessed. Science generally only accounts for the stuff it is aware of, and until the advance of the perihelion of Mercury was witnessed, Newton accurately described the phenomena that technology of the time could discern.
But we aren't talking about scientific units (in general)?
We are talking about accuracy (in particular).
In particular - the metre is the unit of measurement for distance.
42 is the quantity. Meters is the unit.
42 meters divided by 42 still gives you 1 meter.
In particular - the kilogram is the unit of measurement for mass.
42 is the quantity. Kilograms is the unit.
42 kilograms divided by 42 still gives you 1 kilogram.
In particular - what is the unit of measurement for accuracy?
The unit of measure for accuracy doesn't depend on the purpose.
The quantity (amount?) of accuracy required depends on the purpose.
Whatever the unit-measure for accuracy, different purposes will require different quantities of it.
To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one. This could be your chance for SI immortality. If you can determine a way to measure it, we could be measuring accuracy in Skepdicks. Skeps perhaps, or even Dicks if you lean that way. Ah, but what's in a name? You could always change it later.
Well yeah, but I don't imagine NASA lost too much sleep over whether Newton could get them to the Moon and back.
You can do that. But what is to stop you trying again?Logik wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:01 pm1. Obtain a temporary e-mail address at https://www.guerrillamail.com
2. Edit your profile and update your e-mail address to the temporary one above.
3. Follow activation instructions in the message received at https://www.guerrillamail.com
4. Generate random password at https://passwordsgenerator.net/ (DO NOT write this down)
5. Edit your profile and update your password.
If it works this post should be final.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests