Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

[uwot]

The point is the best Hawking's in his state could do was to focus his limited resources to Physics.

That's just silly.

Nope! Why?

You said it yourself:

If you are familiar with the process of getting a PhD, where one must confined oneself to a very specific field of knowledge and very narrow Statement of Problem to enable one to be effective to concludes one's thesis.

Right, and that is true whether one is confined to a wheelchair or not.

While it may used for something more serious it is better not to, so as to avoid any confusion with 1.
A model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm can be both for real or fictional things, but in this case, the reference is to real things only.

If calling a model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm a story confuses you, then it is better that you don't.

I would rate Parmenides' truth at say 50/100 since it is empirically based, but Descartes' 'I AM' as real constitutionally would be a 0.01 truth.

Really? In what half of all circumstances could 'Something exists' be expressed, but not be true? And what are the 99 out of a hundred thoughts you have that don't involve thinking?

Thus if we can expedite the knowing [beliefs] in the masses, then they can be guided with such knowledge to do the right actions to optimize the well-being of the individual[s] and thus contribute to that of humanity.

Whose beliefs should we foist upon the masses so expeditiously?

Note the extensive exposure of knowledge re climate change, on LGBTQ, health issues, slavery, wars, etc. had contributed to changing people's beliefs and action. So the extensive exposure re philosophy-proper [as rational and productive with net positivity] will likely change people's beliefs.

The data are the same for all people who make a point of studying each of those issues. It is demonstrably not true that people will reach any sort of consensus. Instead, most will interpret data in ways that conform to what they already believe, or wish to be true.

[mickthinks]

Both expressions are ontological commitments

I disagree. I think they express pre-ontology givens. Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" is not ontological. Parmenides "something" is not ontological.

How do you demarcate "good" from "bad" things?
This wasn't about my demarcation; it was about yours. You described Descartes and Parmenides as blurring the lines between ontology and epistemology, as if that were a bad thing. (You have since altered your post.) How were you demarcating good and bad?

[Skepdick]

I disagree. I think they express pre-ontology givens.
Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" is not ontological. Parmenides "something" is not ontological.

What the hell is "pre-ontology"? You don't think thought is ontological ?

That's special pleading. EVERYTHING is ontological! There is no thing that is non-ontological.

You are part of the ontology.

This wasn't about my demarcation; it was about yours. You described Descartes and Parmenides as blurring the lines between ontology and epistemology, as if that were a bad thing. (You have since altered your post.) How were you demarcating good and bad?

Irrelevant how I am demarcating them. ALL demarcations occur in minds.

And minds are ontological.

[mickthinks]

“Pre-ontology” is my word. It’s a clumsy attempt to draw a distinctiion between the task and the antecedent of the task. Like a chef engaged in the task of cooking. Everything she does can be considered “cooking”, from running water into a pot to tasting the sauce. Even opening a recipe book and choosing a meal.

But there was no cooking until she had the thought “Let me cook something”. That thought led on directly to cooking, but in no sense does it count as cooking in the way that everything that follows counts as cooking. The thought is a pre-cooking thought.

“Cogito ergo sum” is associated with the discussion of what we know and what is real. But does it make an ontological commitment? I think not.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

The term 'story' is generally for reference to
1. -an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.
While it may used for something more serious it is better not to, so as to avoid any confusion with 1.

On the other hand you may have claimed 1. A story is a narrative sequence of events . " The term 'story' may be used solely for narratives aimed at entertainment or titillation, but better not to do so as this superficial usage may dull people's understanding of how humans use language."

[Veritas Aequitas]

I would rate Parmenides' truth at say 50/100 since it is empirically based, but Descartes' 'I AM' as real constitutionally would be a 0.01 truth.

Really? In what half of all circumstances could 'Something exists' be expressed, but not be true? And what are the 99 out of a hundred thoughts you have that don't involve thinking?

Note I claim there are degrees to claims of veracity or truths as qualified to its specific framework or model.
There is no such thing as 'THE TRUTH.'
It is not with reference to "half of circumstances", but rather in the circumstance as qualified to the specific framework or model used.

Note Parmenides' stance is that of philosophical realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which in certain context is true but ultimately not realistic, thus my rating of its veracity at 50/100.

• This is generally considered one of the first digressions into the philosophical concept of being, and has been contrasted with Heraclitus's statement that "No man ever steps into the same river twice" as one of the first digressions into the philosophical concept of becoming.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

Heraclitus' stance [which is realistic at 80/100 veracity] is that of anti-philosophical-realism against Parmenides' stance.
to get into more details note;
All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Anti-Realism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643


I agree all thoughts include thinking [conscious and unconscious] but the point is Descartes jumped from 'thinking' i.e. the "I Think" [the real empirical self] to the "I AM" as the absolute self & existence, i.e. to a soul that survives physical death. Surely this claim of the "I AM" as an illusory soul cannot be true at all?

Thus if we can expedite the knowing [beliefs] in the masses, then they can be guided with such knowledge to do the right actions to optimize the well-being of the individual[s] and thus contribute to that of humanity.

Whose beliefs should we foist upon the masses so expeditiously?

Whatever beliefs we promote to the masses in this case must be overridden by Moral principles [all good] and foolproof from any evilness. The details of this will be dealt within the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.

Note the extensive exposure of knowledge re climate change, on LGBTQ, health issues, slavery, wars, etc. had contributed to changing people's beliefs and action. So the extensive exposure re philosophy-proper [as rational and productive with net positivity] will likely change people's beliefs.

The data are the same for all people who make a point of studying each of those issues. It is demonstrably not true that people will reach any sort of consensus. Instead, most will interpret data in ways that conform to what they already believe, or wish to be true.

How is that the majority at present are against chattel slavery?
Which of the 100% of people [exception are those who are insance] would agree to be killed, raped, tortured violently.

True in other matters, there are differences at the fringes but there is a core beliefs which is net-positive that the majority will accept.
For example the majority had accepted 'racism' is an evil thought or act.
Personally, long ago I detested homosexuality but now have accepted it after much exposure to information about homosexuality; there is an increasing trend of acceptance of homosexuality even among the religious.

[Skepdick]

“Pre-ontology” is my word. It’s a clumsy attempt to draw a distinctiion between the task and the antecedent of the task.

Yeah. That's how all Philosophy fails. You start drawing (arbitrary) distinctions. You chop up reality into categories.

Like a chef engaged in the task of cooking. Everything she does can be considered “cooking”, from running water into a pot to tasting the sauce. Even opening a recipe book and choosing a meal.

But there was no cooking until she had the thought “Let me cook something”. That thought led on directly to cooking, but in no sense does it count as cooking in the way that everything that follows counts as cooking. The thought is a pre-cooking thought.

OK great. So you recognise that the thought of cooking precedes cooking...

“Cogito ergo sum” is associated with the discussion of what we know and what is real. But does it make an ontological commitment? I think not.

If thought precedes reality then you don't think thought is real.

Awkward.

[uwot]

I would rate Parmenides' truth at say 50/100 since it is empirically based, but Descartes' 'I AM' as real constitutionally would be a 0.01 truth.

Really? In what half of all circumstances could 'Something exists' be expressed, but not be true? And what are the 99 out of a hundred thoughts you have that don't involve thinking?

Note I claim there are

degrees

to claims of veracity or truths as qualified to its specific framework or model.
There is no such thing as 'THE TRUTH.'
It is not with reference to "half of circumstances", but rather in the circumstance as qualified to the specific framework or model used.

Not in the case of Parmenides' initial premise. I will quote myself here:
All that remains of Parmenides’ work are bits and pieces of a poem he wrote that others have quoted. Called On Nature, it tells how a goddess promised to teach him about reality. The goddess says: “It is necessary for you to learn all things, both the abiding essence of persuasive truth, and men’s opinions, in which rests no true belief.” The opinions of Anaximander or Pythagoras can possibly give us ‘true belief’ about the world, but we can never be sure about their conclusions. Is there anything that we can know with certainty? Parmenides’ innovation was to strip away ‘men’s opinions’ about the world and test what remains. His ‘persuasive truth’ was that regardless of what we might see or calculate, something exists: as he said: “Being is.” Whatever we might think about reality, it is self-refuting to argue that nothing exists. https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches
The statement 'Something exists' is necessarily true; even if the only thing that exists is that statement. Similarly with Descartes; if the only thing that ever exists is the immediate perception you are having right now, it is necessarily true that that perception exists. Unlikely though it is, it is conceivable that all you are is a brief perception of youness that will flicker out any second now. Every empirical claim beyond those two is to some extent theory laden. That is not to say that there is no such thing as the truth, it's just that beyond 'something' and thought, we can't be certain what it is.

[Belinda]

Really? In what half of all circumstances could 'Something exists' be expressed, but not be true? And what are the 99 out of a hundred thoughts you have that don't involve thinking?

Note I claim there are

degrees

to claims of veracity or truths as qualified to its specific framework or model.
There is no such thing as 'THE TRUTH.'
It is not with reference to "half of circumstances", but rather in the circumstance as qualified to the specific framework or model used.

Not in the case of Parmenides' initial premise. I will quote myself here:
All that remains of Parmenides’ work are bits and pieces of a poem he wrote that others have quoted. Called On Nature, it tells how a goddess promised to teach him about reality. The goddess says: “It is necessary for you to learn all things, both the abiding essence of persuasive truth, and men’s opinions, in which rests no true belief.” The opinions of Anaximander or Pythagoras can possibly give us ‘true belief’ about the world, but we can never be sure about their conclusions. Is there anything that we can know with certainty? Parmenides’ innovation was to strip away ‘men’s opinions’ about the world and test what remains. His ‘persuasive truth’ was that regardless of what we might see or calculate, something exists: as he said: “Being is.” Whatever we might think about reality, it is self-refuting to argue that nothing exists. https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches
The statement 'Something exists' is necessarily true; even if the only thing that exists is that statement. Similarly with Descartes; if the only thing that ever exists is the immediate perception you are having right now, it is necessarily true that that perception exists. Unlikely though it is, it is conceivable that all you are is a brief perception of youness that will flicker out any second now. Every empirical claim beyond those two is to some extent theory laden. That is not to say that there is no such thing as the truth, it's just that beyond 'something' and thought, we can't be certain what it is.

Uwot, would you be willing to swap "something exists" for "something is happening" ?

I ask because it is minds that thingify the unidentified plenum, and 'events' is a little less made of granite than are 'things'.

[uwot]

Uwot, would you be willing to swap "something exists" for "something is happening" ?

I ask because it is minds that thingify the unidentified plenum, and 'events' is a little less made of granite than are 'things'.

Well, if someone held a gun to my head and demanded I tell them one thing I am absolutely certain of, it is that there is at least one phenomenon. That could certainly be construed as "something is happening", so short answer: yes. I agree that minds thingify the plenum, which I think is almost certainly one or more quantum field, and that we, along with the rest of the universe, are what is happening to that/those quantum field/s.

[mickthinks]

You start drawing (arbitrary) distinctions.

That's how language works. I concede that all knowledge failures are in some degree or sense failures of language. I plead guilty, on your behalf as well as my own.

If thought precedes reality then you don't think thought is real.

Nothing precedes reality, dude! Thought precedes discourse. Thought precedes appraisal and assimilation. Thought precedes understanding.

[Belinda]

Uwot, would you be willing to swap "something exists" for "something is happening" ?

I ask because it is minds that thingify the unidentified plenum, and 'events' is a little less made of granite than are 'things'.

Well, if someone held a gun to my head and demanded I tell them one thing I am absolutely certain of, it is that there is at least one phenomenon. That could certainly be construed as "something is happening", so short answer: yes. I agree that minds thingify the plenum, which I think is almost certainly one or more quantum field, and that we, along with the rest of the universe, are what is happening to that/those quantum field/s.

Oh good ! I like that.

[Skepdick]

You start drawing (arbitrary) distinctions.

That's how language works. I concede that all knowledge failures are in some degree or sense failures of language. I plead guilty, on your behalf as well as my own.

If thought precedes reality then you don't think thought is real.

Nothing precedes reality, dude! Thought precedes discourse. Thought precedes appraisal and assimilation. Thought precedes understanding.

Your plea is of no concern here. I am already on the same page as you.

I am pointing out the particular use of language and how particular linguistic expressions are supposed to be understood.

Using nouns or gerunds expresses phenomena meant to be understood as ontological.
Using adjectives or adverbs expresses phenomena meant to be understood as epistemic.

In the sentence "Being is" the term "being" is used as a gerund - it is ontological; and the term "is" is being used as an adverb to the gerund - it's epistemic.

[Skepdick]

Uwot, would you be willing to swap "something exists" for "something is happening" ?

Just as well, you could use "The Happening" synonumously with "The Universe" or "The Something".

The denotation would be the same, even if the connotation of "The Happening" implies a more dynamic nature than the other two.

[mickthinks]

Using nouns or gerunds expresses phenomena meant to be understood as ontological.
Using adjectives or adverbs expresses phenomena meant to be understood as epistemic.

As a rule maybe ... but I believe there are exceptions.

In the sentence "Being is" the term "being" is used as a gerund - it is ontological; and the term "is" is being used as an adverb to the gerund - it's epistemic.

Interesting theory! Have you tested it? I'll be very interested to see the data from any of the experiments you've conducted.