Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

[simplicity]

As opposed to what?

As opposed to being bullshit. What's confusing you?

The notion that something works is not at issue.

EVERYBODY throughout history thought they knew how it works [just like you do].

It's precisely because I know how it works is why I can explain it to a computer.

And why is that different than what people have done for millennia?

You are using your assumptions as your proof.

Duh. That's exactly what a "proof" is.

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

Duh? Are you in 8th grade?

It's precisely because they are my own assumptions is why I know HOW they work.

You believe you know how they work. You don't [are not capable] know anything [as all things knowable are transient].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your views?

Unfortunately, no. But the influence of philosophy is slowly corrupting science,

If you are defining 'philosophy' as some kind of bastardized or pseudo-philosophy [academic, armchair and the likes], then your point is likely, e.g. under the influence of scientism.

However there is philosophy-proper as a positive function inherent in all humans [dormant in most, active in some] that is an impulse to progress and maintain the well-being of each individual and therefrom humanity.

Even etymologically, the term 'philosophy' is love of wisdom. How can any love of wisdom per se be corrupting science?
Your thinking is too narrow and constricted as to what is wisdom.
To give you an idea, note;

• Wisdom, sapience, or sagacity is the ability to contemplate and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense and insight.[1]
  Wisdom is associated with attributes such as unbiased judgment, compassion, experiential self-knowledge, self-transcendence and non-attachment,[2] and virtues such as ethics and benevolence.
  
  The Oxford English Dictionary defines wisdom as "Capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgment in the choice of means and ends; sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: opp. to folly;" also "Knowledge (esp. of a high or abstruse kind); enlightenment, learning, erudition."[8]
  
  Charles Haddon Spurgeon defined wisdom as "the right use of knowledge".[9]
  Robert I. Sutton and Andrew Hargadon defined the "attitude of wisdom" as "acting with knowledge while doubting what one knows".
  In social and psychological sciences, several distinct approaches to wisdom exist,[3] with major advances made in the last two decades with respect to operationalization[2] and measurement[7] of wisdom as a psychological construct.
  
  Wisdom is the capacity to have foreknowledge of something, to know the consequences (both positive and negative) of all the available course of actions, and to yield or take the options with the most advantage either for present or future implication.
  
  -wiki

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm gonna say science can't kill philosophy because philosophy is actually about language analysis, despite what philosophers and metaphysicians and ontologists and the whole lot of em like to think.

With Wittgenstein I hold that philosophy explains nothing. Explanations belong to the natural sciences, and descriptive statements are either empirically verifiable or not. Philosophy's role, then, is to analyze language through the use of the tools of logic. This essentially amounts to examining language and spotting formal and informal fallacies that result from improper rule following in the grammar, semantics and syntax, more or less.

Think about it. Statements of fact about the world belong to the sciences, just like inferences, conjectures and theories. So then what makes a statement 'philosophical'? Again with Wittgenstein, it's when you send your language on vacation... when your language is doing no real work. Or, at best, when it's actively searching for nonsense through linguistic analysis. If it isn't doing this, your 'philosophy' is just poetry.

Note my definition of what is philosophy in the above post to Saunders.

The inherent philosophy-proper manifest so ubiquitously and subliminally in various forms that it is said, the number of definitions of 'philosophy' is the same number as those who attempt to define it.

As such there is a need to dig into it, starting from the associated 'wisdom' and deeper into its essence.
The essence of philosophy is basically the impulse from a model to improve progress continually using whatever tools and resources to optimize one's well being so then to contribute the the well being of humanity.

As such, language is one of the tool employed by philosophy for its ultimate purpose. The other tools are logic, metaphysics, science [to gain knowledge], mathematics, etc. etc.

Science is merely a subset of philosophy, thus science has be killed before philosophy can be killed.

[uwot]

I'm gonna say science can't kill philosophy because philosophy is actually about language analysis, despite what philosophers and metaphysicians and ontologists and the whole lot of em like to think.

Well, yeah, first rule of philosophy: Everyone else is wrong.

With Wittgenstein I hold that philosophy explains nothing.

Wittgenstein was wrong.

Explanations belong to the natural sciences...

They belong wherever they serve some function.

...and descriptive statements are either empirically verifiable or not.

Philosophy's role, then, is to analyze language through the use of the tools of logic. This essentially amounts to examining language and spotting formal and informal fallacies that result from improper rule following in the grammar, semantics and syntax, more or less.

So you're a logical positivist.

Think about it. Statements of fact about the world belong to the sciences, just like inferences, conjectures and theories. So then what makes a statement 'philosophical'? Again with Wittgenstein, it's when you send your language on vacation... when your language is doing no real work. Or, at best, when it's actively searching for nonsense through linguistic analysis. If it isn't doing this, your 'philosophy' is just poetry.

What's wrong with poetry? As Richard Feynman said "Every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k All of those theoretical representations are philosophical, even poetic, but they are useful for the ideas they generate, which might not arise in another theoretical representation. The 'spacetime' of Einstein's general relativity, is a very good explanation, but it is not empirically verifiable. What is empirically verifiable is whether things behave consistently with the model, which to a high accuracy they do. That doesn't stop physicists postulating things like quantum gravity.

[Skepdick]

You believe you know how they work. You don't [are not capable] know anything [as all things knowable are transient].

You must be as stupid as you sound.

If you are not capable of knowing anything then how do you know that knowable things are transient?

You are trapped in Socrates' reductionist trap.

Is knowing that you don't know anything knowledge or not-knowledge?

Recursion is computation...

[Belinda]

Promethean75 wrote:

With Wittgenstein I hold that philosophy explains nothing.

A social theory of knowledge like that of the later Wittgenstein is not explaining nothing, it explains the probable origin of knowledge. Please think of theories of truth regarding knowledge. Wittgenstein's social theory of knowledge is a coherence theory of truth, it's not a correspondence theory of truth.

[Iwannaplato]

Here is the Video related to the above Debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-uaZvcCuo

Stephen Hawking's proclamation that philosophy is dead was clearly hyperbole. But when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of reality, has philosophy really got anything left to contribute? Does the rise of physics demand the end of metaphysics?

That last question is confused. Physics uses metaphysics and has debates around metaphyics, especially in some subdisciplines. Physics uses metaphysics, speculates in metaphysics and tests metaphysical claims, generally from within physics, all the time. Whether they use that name or not it is a discipline that engages in metaphysics to a greater degree than most other parts of science and even more than most people outside the sciences. So, really, the question has a tacit category error. It's like saying the rise of sociology demands the end of language use or the use of questions.

Which is not so different from what is funny here...

Rosenberg is optimistic Science will kill Philosophy when all the questions to be raised are answered by Science which is a possibility in the future.

Rosenberg using intuition, obviously, and not science.

and

What Alex defends is, whatever questions that are left then are merely pseudo-questions.

Which is obviously also not science, it is speculation, something probably both of them would scoff at if used by someone has beliefs they disagreed with.

Anyone saying Science will one day.....

is not using scientific methodology (while doing that) and should be ignored on the same grounds they ask us to ignore other things.

[simplicity]

You believe you know how they work. You don't [are not capable] know anything [as all things knowable are transient].

You must be as stupid as you sound.

Didn't your parents teach you how to talk with other people? Grow-up.

If you are not capable of knowing anything then how do you know that knowable things are transient?

Even if you don't know what lies beyond the stars, you can still speculate, right? I am only telling you what makes sense to me. There is no reason to get nasty about it.

You are trapped in Socrates' reductionist trap.

In the end, it comes down to notion the nobody can [actually] know anything. This is well accepted by those who have given it any thought. Do you disagree that all things knowable are transient? Can people get close? Well, it doesn't really seem that way to me. Others choose to believe what they wish. Look throughout history at what folks have chosen to take for the truth. That should give pause...

[Skepdick]

Didn't your parents teach you how to talk with other people? Grow-up.

They taught me to say what I mean and mean what I say. So I am doing that...

Even if you don't know what lies beyond the stars, you can still speculate, right? I am only telling you what makes sense to me. There is no reason to get nasty about it.

I am not being nasty - I am just using your own principle and applying it to your words.

How do you know it makes sense?

In the end, it comes down to notion the nobody can [actually] know anything.

Ever heard of a Moorean shift?

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

This is well accepted by those who have given it any thought.

And well rejected by those who have thought further still.

Do you disagree that all things knowable are transient? Can people get close? Well, it doesn't really seem that way to me. Others choose to believe what they wish. Look throughout history at what folks have chosen to take for the truth. That should give pause...

I disagree indeed. Here is one hand. And here is another. I know I have two hands.

[Iwannaplato]

Ever heard of a Moorean shift?

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

And well rejected by those who have thought further still.

I disagree indeed. Here is one hand. And here is another. I know I have two hands.

I think it is fair to say the way you respond to him, using the linked argument, it is as if the subject has been closed by this argument. IOW if one has thought further, one recognize that in fact we now know this skepticism is wrong. Though if one thinks further again one comes across objections. And of course if one thinks further (though actually that word 'further' has some implications that I think are biased) others have defended Moore from these objections, but it is not like the issue is settled, not that Moore position is objectively further (toward the truth) than, for example, those objections.

In the linked article
Objections and replies
Some subsequent philosophers (especially those inclined to skeptical doubts) have found Moore's method of argument unconvincing.[4]

One form of refutation contends that Moore's attempted proof fails his second criterion for a good proof (i.e. the premises are not demonstrable in the required sense) by pointing out the difference between demonstrating the perception that his hands exist and demonstrating the knowledge that his hands exist. Moore may be doing the former when he means to be doing the latter.[4]

Another form of refutation simply points out that not everyone shares Moore's intuition. If a person finds the skeptical possibility sp more intuitively likely than the knowledge claim q, then for that person Moore's own defense of intuition provides a basis for their skepticism.[4]

Ludwig Wittgenstein offered a subtle objection to Moore's argument in passage #554 of On Certainty (see below). Considering "I know..", he said "In its language-game it is not presumptuous ('nicht anmassend')," so that even if P implies Q, knowing P is true doesn't necessarily entail Q. Moore has displaced "I know.." from its language-game and derived a fallacy.

You must be as stupid as you sound.

Didn't your parents teach you how to talk with other people? Grow-up.

They taught me to say what I mean and mean what I say. So I am doing that...

If that's really all they taught you about how to talk to people, let alone in philosophy forums or the like, then I feel sorry for you. But perhaps you realize how limited that heuristic is when you are face to face with people. And just find it pleasing to get away with it here.

[Skepdick]

I think it is fair to say the way you respond to him, using the linked argument, it is as if the subject has been closed by this argument.

The subject is closed if you choose to close it. And open if you choose to open it. Language is intentional - I am sure you know this.

To any claim whatsoever. Even a claim that rejects the possibility of knowledge I simply retort with... HOW do you know?

it is not like the issue is settled, not that Moore position is objectively further (toward the truth) than, for example, those objections.

1. Truth is horseshit - all describtive statements are normative.
2. I know that I have two hands

If you want to go all Philosophical (e.g full retard) do it without me. Otherwise Asimov's response in "The Relativity of Wrong" fully addresses the concerns of skeptics who insist that it's all wrong.

when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When
people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth
is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of
them put together.

If that's really all they taught you about how to talk to people, let alone in philosophy forums or the like, then I feel sorry for you. But perhaps you realize how limited that heuristic is when you are face to face with people. And just find it pleasing to get away with it here.

I feel sorry for you that you feel sorry for me. But let me tell you - even in real life I get away with telling people to fuck off quite regularly.
No matter how courteous the sophist they are still stealing your time.

It is a calculated expression. It truly terminates interactions I am not interested in having with idiots I am not interested in conversing with.
In similar fashion - courtesy too is calculated. I probably want/need something from you...

So lets get to the point. I know how induction works. if you choose to go full retard on skepticism, I'll just steal your strategy, step up the skepticism and throw it back in your face.

it says Skepdick. If you haven't noticed.

[simplicity]

Didn't your parents teach you how to talk with other people? Grow-up.

They taught me to say what I mean and mean what I say. So I am doing that...

Even if you don't know what lies beyond the stars, you can still speculate, right? I am only telling you what makes sense to me. There is no reason to get nasty about it.

I am not being nasty - I am just using your own principle and applying it to your words.

"You must be as stupid as you sound." Not is it nasty, but why would you say something like this? Are you an adult?

How do you know it makes sense?

In the end, it comes down to notion the nobody can [actually] know anything.

Ever heard of a Moorean shift?

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

This is well accepted by those who have given it any thought.

And well rejected by those who have thought further still.

Do you disagree that all things knowable are transient? Can people get close? Well, it doesn't really seem that way to me. Others choose to believe what they wish. Look throughout history at what folks have chosen to take for the truth. That should give pause...

I disagree indeed. Here is one hand. And here is another. I know I have two hands.
[/quote]

I could dispute that but I don't believe your mind is open enough to hear anything other than what you want to hear. So, I'll let this go and wish you the best.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I could dispute that but I don't believe your mind is open enough to hear anything other than what you want to hear. So, I'll let this go and wish you the best.

psychopath
: a mentally unstable person
especially : a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies.

Psychopathy, sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy, is characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Where one's Theory of Mind is Deficient.
In psychology, theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other people by ascribing mental states to them. These states may be different from one's own states and include beliefs, desires, intentions and emotions. Possessing a functional theory of mind is considered crucial for success in everyday human social interactions and is used when analyzing, judging, and inferring others' behaviors. Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, genetic-based eating disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,[1] cocaine addiction,[2] and brain damage suffered from alcohol's neurotoxicity.

I won't be surprised you could be threatened with a gun if you argue further.

[simplicity]

I could dispute that but I don't believe your mind is open enough to hear anything other than what you want to hear. So, I'll let this go and wish you the best.

psychopath
: a mentally unstable person
especially : a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies.

Psychopathy, sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy, is characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Where one's Theory of Mind is Deficient.
In psychology, theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other people by ascribing mental states to them. These states may be different from one's own states and include beliefs, desires, intentions and emotions. Possessing a functional theory of mind is considered crucial for success in everyday human social interactions and is used when analyzing, judging, and inferring others' behaviors. Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, genetic-based eating disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,[1] cocaine addiction,[2] and brain damage suffered from alcohol's neurotoxicity.

I won't be surprised you could be threatened with a gun if you argue further.

You people must be in Junior High School.

Would you like me to direct you to wikipedia in order to explain?

Please play among yourselves. One of these days, you'll be able to sit a the big table too.

[simplicity]

You Leftists are just an incredibly nasty lot. I wish you all the best of luck ['cause you're going to need it].

I am sure you can find somebody else to harass.