What are the facts of philosophy?

[uwot]

I agree with most of this but would question whether it is actually beyond the reach of science to explain anything
As a methodology it is the best means of understanding the observable universe. Even if it cannot absolutely do so

It's a fair point. It all depends on what you mean by science. I am using a strictly empirical definition, which is not how most scientists work. If you take Ptolemy's model of the universe, for instance, it is a scientific theory because it is actually very successful in predicting the observable phenomena: the planets and stars are more or less where Ptolemy says they will be. But the metaphysics, the geocentric model, is untrue. In that sense, the theory goes beyond the phenomena.
There is a speech given by Einstein ( http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html ) in which he explains his metaphysical belief in an 'ether' and how General Relativity would be unthinkable without it. Ironically, it was his own Special Relativity that demolished the idea of a lumineferous ether. The ether has been quietly forgotten by most scientists, because for practical purposes, it doesn't matter what you attribute phenomena to, all science really has to do is make predictions that allow us to manipulate our environment. But of course, scientists are no less interested in explaining what they observe than anyone else.

[uwot]

I suspect that Thales chose water as his fundamental element as it is easily seen to be able to take up the three forms of solid (ice), liquid and gas (steam)

It is certainly strong supporting evidence, but I have argued, in an article that I wrote for the magazine, that Thales' hypothesis was based on Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythology. In essence, these two early civilisations were founded on flood plains, which facilitates agriculture. They mistook sedimentation for transmutation, the basis for alchemy. The belief was that water turns into earth. The 'marriage' of water and earth creates air, you may have seen methane bubbling up from the rotting vegetation underwater, and methane just happens to be flammable, hence air turns into fire.
You can read the article here https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches if you are a subscriber. Or here http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2015 ... nches.html if you are not.

[marjoram_blues]

To surreptitious, yes I am getting confused
Too much sun and heat, not enough water!

I did have a seagull in mind when replying to your post. However, the first part was directed at your words.
Feel free to expand, if you wish...

Or not- my brain is frazzled and not really interested, if I am honest...in the focus on facts issue, I mean, not you...

[A_Seagull]

To ASeagull

Re the topic of philosophy books, courses and their contents.
Clearly some include the 'facts' which uwot carefully outlined. Some will go into more or less detail and provide alternative perspectives.

I also pointed out: there is more than one side or aim of/to or in philosophy.
The chasing of the seemingly stale old tales can make for good thinking and personal challenges and growth, depending on how they are presented.

I'm thinking of philosophy for children ( wiki article). You can scroll down to the list of books to glimpse the variety of fun and practical philosophy on offer.

Again, not dry theory or dogmatic posturing argumentation but use of fiction to address philosophical issues. Reflective thinking collaboratively.

Please explain why you bring up the issue of 'facts'- I'd like to know the background, thanks.

If you want thought provoking material you could try The Simpsons or perhaps Alice in Wonderland.

Science without fact is pseudoscience, and there is a lot of it about; philosophy without facts is pseudo-philosophy, and there is a lot of that about too.

[Jaded Sage]

Here's an interesting quote from Plato: Poetry is something more philosophic and serious than history; for poetry speaks of what is universal, history of what is particular.

[A_Seagull]

...but why are they facts? Surely not just because Parmenides et al stated them? But then where do they come from?

How is it possible to conclude that "There is something"?

1. Because it is self refuting to state there is nothing.
2. By the same token, it is self refuting to think 'there are no thoughts', but as Descartes argued, it is possible that we are hallucinating or being deceived by an evil daemon.
3. Whatever hypothesis you propose as the explanation for the things you see and hear, it will always be subject to the problem of induction.
4. Whatever the source of the phenomena, it is beyond the reach of science to explain it. So, for instance, while we can detect quarks, leptons and so on, which we think are fundamental, we cannot currently directly detect the stuff they are made of. We can't see it; we can only think about it. In Kant's terms, it is not phenomenal, it is noumenal.
5. Using the same example; how and what we think about the stuff the universe is made of, depends on the model we have chosen to adopt. That is demonstrably the case.

Re. Point 3: Yes, perception is the consequence of a process that can be classified as induction, but it is not a problem; it is a fact. There is no "problem of induction".

[uwot]

3. Whatever hypothesis you propose as the explanation for the things you see and hear, it will always be subject to the problem of induction.

Re. Point 3: Yes, perception is the consequence of a process that can be classified as induction, but it is not a problem; it is a fact. There is no "problem of induction".

Induction, as the word is used in philosophy, is the practise of making a series of observations, and inferring a general law from them. So a simple example might be flipping a coin ten times and each time it lands heads up. You infer that it always lands heads up. The problem in that instance is obvious: past observations are no guarantee of future behaviour. Bertrand Russell illustrated the problem with a chicken who gets used to being fed by the farmer in the morning and believes this will always happen. Then one day, the farmer wrings its neck.
A more sophisticated example is gravity. The two biggest names in physics, Newton and Einstein, both believed that two objects were always drawn together and the theories of gravity they proposed to explain the phenomena are brilliantly successful. However, more recent observations imply that at cosmic distances galaxies do not attract each other, as gravity insists, they actually repel each other. Scientists have no idea why, but as something is clearly doing some work, it's called Dark Energy.
It could be that any given scientific hypothesis is true; that it really is the last word on the matter, but you simply don't know what you are going to see, until you see it. But then, just because there has always been a problem of induction, doesn't mean there always will be, which is the problem of the problem of induction.

[surreptitious57]

Science is primarily an inductive discipline which means that it deals in probable truth while
mathematics is primarily a deductive discipline which means that it deals in definitive truth

[marjoram_blues]

To ASeagull

Re the topic of philosophy books, courses and their contents.
Clearly some include the 'facts' which uwot carefully outlined. Some will go into more or less detail and provide alternative perspectives.

I also pointed out: there is more than one side or aim of/to or in philosophy.
The chasing of the seemingly stale old tales can make for good thinking and personal challenges and growth, depending on how they are presented.

I'm thinking of philosophy for children ( wiki article). You can scroll down to the list of books to glimpse the variety of fun and practical philosophy on offer.

Again, not dry theory or dogmatic posturing argumentation but use of fiction to address philosophical issues. Reflective thinking collaboratively.

Please explain why you bring up the issue of 'facts'- I'd like to know the background, thanks.

If you want thought provoking material you could try The Simpsons or perhaps Alice in Wonderland.

Science without fact is pseudoscience, and there is a lot of it about; philosophy without facts is pseudo-philosophy, and there is a lot of that about too.

To a seagull.
Ah now I recognise the pattern of this discussion. I'll now give it a miss and get back to the real world which provides more than enough material or 'facts' on which thoughts and study are based.It's so easy to stick pseudo on to any subject or individual.
Pretty rubbish thing to do without giving your own special criteria for what you consider 'genuine'.
But we've been here before...

[A_Seagull]

Science is primarily an inductive discipline which means that it deals in probable truth while
mathematics is primarily a deductive discipline which means that it deals in definitive truth

Yes and science deals with the real world while pure mathematics is entirely abstract.

[A_Seagull]

3. Whatever hypothesis you propose as the explanation for the things you see and hear, it will always be subject to the problem of induction.

Re. Point 3: Yes, perception is the consequence of a process that can be classified as induction, but it is not a problem; it is a fact. There is no "problem of induction".

Induction, as the word is used in philosophy, is the practise of making a series of observations, and inferring a general law from them. So a simple example might be flipping a coin ten times and each time it lands heads up. You infer that it always lands heads up. The problem in that instance is obvious: past observations are no guarantee of future behaviour. Bertrand Russell illustrated the problem with a chicken who gets used to being fed by the farmer in the morning and believes this will always happen. Then one day, the farmer wrings its neck.
A more sophisticated example is gravity. The two biggest names in physics, Newton and Einstein, both believed that two objects were always drawn together and the theories of gravity they proposed to explain the phenomena are brilliantly successful. However, more recent observations imply that at cosmic distances galaxies do not attract each other, as gravity insists, they actually repel each other. Scientists have no idea why, but as something is clearly doing some work, it's called Dark Energy.
It could be that any given scientific hypothesis is true; that it really is the last word on the matter, but you simply don't know what you are going to see, until you see it. But then, just because there has always been a problem of induction, doesn't mean there always will be, which is the problem of the problem of induction.

So what is the problem?

I suspect that the problem you have is more to do with the meaning of truth than with induction.

[uwot]

So what is the problem?

I suspect that the problem you have is more to do with the meaning of truth than with induction.

Maybe. Is it true that there is a substance called spacetime that is warped by matter?

[A_Seagull]

So what is the problem?

I suspect that the problem you have is more to do with the meaning of truth than with induction.

Maybe. Is it true that there is a substance called spacetime that is warped by matter?

It is a theory and probably quite a good one. One can label it as 'true' if one wants to for pragmatic purposes, but it is quite possible that a better theory will come along at a later date.

[uwot]

It is a theory and probably quite a good one. One can label it as 'true' if one wants to for pragmatic purposes, but it is quite possible that a better theory will come along at a later date.

Well, the point I was making is that there are two sides to some theories. There is the predictive power, and there is no question that General Relativity is a very good theory in that respect. Then there is the metaphysical model on which it is predicated. Whether that is true is irrelevant to the predictive usefulness. Newton famously said he didn't care about the cause (hypotheses non fingo), all that matters is that the maths adds up.

[A_Seagull]

It is a theory and probably quite a good one. One can label it as 'true' if one wants to for pragmatic purposes, but it is quite possible that a better theory will come along at a later date.

Well, the point I was making is that there are two sides to some theories. There is the predictive power, and there is no question that General Relativity is a very good theory in that respect. Then there is the metaphysical model on which it is predicated. Whether that is true is irrelevant to the predictive usefulness. Newton famously said he didn't care about the cause (hypotheses non fingo), all that matters is that the maths adds up.

I don't see that there is a real distinction between your 'two sides' to a theory.

You can have a theory which has certain descriptive powers that is based on a theory-laden model. In order to be useful, the theory would also need to have predictive powers too.

But it is all paradigms. It is all based upon phenomenal data. Any inference about possible noumenal reality is just another model, another paradigm.