Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 2:57 am "You must be as stupid as you sound." Not is it nasty, but why would you say something like this? Are you an adult?
Why wouldn't I say it? Adults say all sort of things. Freedom of expression and all that...
simplicity wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 2:57 am I could dispute that but I don't believe your mind is open enough to hear anything other than what you want to hear.

You mean like how I just disputed your skepticism but your mind wasn't open enough to hear it?

Philosophers. Masters at disagreement. Retards at agreement.
puto
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:44 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by puto »

Science was a particular defined knowledge. a posteriori (the five senses,) and by necessity philosophers were intellectuals of orthodoxy and dogma. Evidently skepticism needed to be defined as a state of ataraxia that ought we do anything in particular? Do not be disappointed or upset and something else happens or matters. Introspection is even immune to skepticism and even more immediate or direct data than sensory knowledge. A methodical skeptic, such as I, doubts as a Method: John Locke 1632-1704 CE and Hume asked Two Questions: What are the materials with which the mind is furnished, and what uses can we make of them to arrive at knowledge. Skepticism Rule: Not to agree, questioning what everybody says. Excessiveness is problematic to philosophy like the Sophists (questions were Persuasion: Relies on emotional, ethical, or rational appeals) pushed against everything. Socrates and Plato would find the truth (the good.) Like an epistemological skeptic what can be known, in the line of David Hume 1711-1776 CE. Scientific knowledge was not a contradiction but was matter of fact and synthetic and a posteriori for Hume. A demonstration for Hume meant a deductive argument (discovering all truths.)
See (a posteriori) being sound in my premises that Philosophy Now magazine did help by the articles, which were a researched form of data. I thank you for those articles and basis of knowledge. The forum is very Cynical. But, by allowing questions to learn, it serves its purpose, and has allowed learning and freedom of speech to thrive. For this thank-you, for both the magazine and forum, live long and prosper.
puto
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:44 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by puto »

Stephen Hawking was a genius that is what we learned in physics class. My philosophy professor said, "Philosophy is not about sitting around quoting dead philosophers, but about why you believe in what, you believe in what," Dr Mummert. Philosophical knowledge and Scientific knowledge are two different approaches to epistemology. We learned about philosophical knowledge in physics class first, then scientific knowledge and why it was better. To introduce a question is not philosophy, but to answer it is philosophy, Dr Freeland. With scientific knowledge, you do not rely on superstition or supernatural explanations, but a method of Explanation: What it is about. When you are a Skeptic, you are not a Cynic. Those are two entirely different approaches to philosophy. Knowing, that knowledge is hard to achieve, and having to work at it, as believing in tabula rasa, read, and then go to college because what you think you know, really is what the truth is. Then take one Doctor of philosophy for years, for their perspective, and then take another Doctor of philosophy for their perspective, and you will learn. Then you as I will throw your hands in the air, and say, "I know I know nothing, but I learned the self as Socrates said." Peace be with you and I respect you and hope the best for you in your experience of learning that of which you choose in your deliberation. As I believe in libertarianism and not determinism when it comes to freedom, some human actions are such that the agent could have done otherwise, Dr Freeland. So, deliberate and assume that your choice really was a choice of action.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 6:43 am Philosophers. Masters at disagreement. Retards at agreement.
Perhaps you can help me out. Can you explain what the purpose of calling somebody you are chatting with school yard names is? I really don't get it.
What exactly is the point?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:18 pm Perhaps you can help me out. Can you explain what the purpose of calling somebody you are chatting with school yard names is? I really don't get it.
What exactly is the point?
I thought correct descriptions of the world were called "facts"?

There is no point to facts. They just are.
puto
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:44 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by puto »

Fact: The predicate makes an assertion or a denial about the subject, or describes an action by the subject. Make sure your thesis can be Argued: Logical reasons,solid evidence, and sound reasoning, quoting experts is persuasion. Your opinion on the subject, at least the Cynics ranted with opinions. Objective and certainly valid true statement that can be proved. 2 + 2 = 5, 3 + 3 = 4. Finally gaining wisdom from knowledge. “The purpose of the world and all that is in it is to make a wise and kind human,” wrote Maimonides 1138-1204 CE (Shapira 52.) Wisdom is inherently different from knowledge (Shapira 52.) The latter can be handed down, the former cannot (Shapira 52.) People can acquire information that is trivial (Shapira 52.) Wisdom can help us find meaning in life (Shapira 53.)
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by Belinda »

puto wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:51 am Fact: The predicate makes an assertion or a denial about the subject, or describes an action by the subject. Make sure your thesis can be Argued: Logical reasons,solid evidence, and sound reasoning, quoting experts is persuasion. Your opinion on the subject, at least the Cynics ranted with opinions. Objective and certainly valid true statement that can be proved. 2 + 2 = 5, 3 + 3 = 4. Finally gaining wisdom from knowledge. “The purpose of the world and all that is in it is to make a wise and kind human,” wrote Maimonides 1138-1204 CE (Shapira 52.) Wisdom is inherently different from knowledge (Shapira 52.) The latter can be handed down, the former cannot (Shapira 52.) People can acquire information that is trivial (Shapira 52.) Wisdom can help us find meaning in life (Shapira 53.)
Educationists know for a fact that wisdom can be handed down. I don't know why you thought you should position your quote that says otherwise alongside the wise and ethical quote from Maimonides.
puto
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:44 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by puto »

Data picks your poison? Belinda which one do you choose? I will not put up with fallacies, and the abusive ad hominem. Also, nothing goes against the conclusion. Everything is Self-Evident: The case or not the case. Not both the case and not the case at the same time. Be obvious and self-evident truth that is always true. In conclusion be valid in your arguments. If you choose research, prove using objective data. Support your thesis and prove it. Establish your claim. Thank-you for arguing.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by Belinda »

puto wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:50 pm Data picks your poison? Belinda which one do you choose? I will not put up with fallacies, and the abusive ad hominem. Also, nothing goes against the conclusion. Everything is Self-Evident: The case or not the case. Not both the case and not the case at the same time. Be obvious and self-evident truth that is always true. In conclusion be valid in your arguments. If you choose research, prove using objective data. Support your thesis and prove it. Establish your claim. Thank-you for arguing.
But everything is self evident only within the frame of logic which is not the whole of a life.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:37 am Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate
Unfortunately, no. If only it had!

The only true description of, "philosophical debate," was provided by H.L. Mencken:
Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
This entire thread is proof Mencken was right.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:37 am Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate
Unfortunately, no. If only it had!

The only true description of, "philosophical debate," was provided by H.L. Mencken:
Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
This entire thread is proof Mencken was right.
Within the normal distribution of humans there is always a small percentile [1-3%] of irrational weirdos and you are in one of this irrational-weirdos category.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:37 am Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate
Unfortunately, no. If only it had!

The only true description of, "philosophical debate," was provided by H.L. Mencken:
Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
This entire thread is proof Mencken was right.
Within the normal distribution of humans there is always a small percentile [1-3%] of irrational weirdos and you are in one of this irrational-weirdos category.
Thank you for that fine, even if unintended, complement. To be categorized with the most important individuals in history is certainly an honor.

After all it was all those individuals considered the, "irrational-weirdos," of their day, like Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Francesco Redi, Sir Isaac Newton, Christiaan Huygens, Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Edward Jenner, Alessandro Volta, John Dalton, Georg Ohm, Amedeo Avogadro, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Dmitri Mendeleev, William Crookes, J.J. Thomson, Marie Curie, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Alexander Fleming, James Chadwick, Johannes Gutenberg, Gerardus Mercator, Evangelista Torricelli, Zacharias Janssen, William Oughtred, Christiaan Huygens, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, Thomas Newcomen, John Kay, James Hargreaves, James Watt, John Wilkinson, Jesse Ramsden, John Wilkinson, Martinus van Marum, Andrew Meikle, Edmund Cartwright, Eli Whitney, Edward Jenner, Friedrich Sertürner, Robert Fulton, Nicolas Appert, Charles Babbage, William Sturgeon, John Walker, Moritz von Jacobi, John Bennet Lawes, Sir Henry Bessemer, Heinrich Geissler, Gaston Planté, Alexander Parkes, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Nobel, Nikolaus August Otto, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Sir Charles Parsons, Carl Gassner, John J. Loud, Whitcomb Judson, Rudolf Diesel, Orville and Wilbur Wright, John Ambrose Fleming, Leo Baekeland, Jacques E. Brandenberger, Alexander Fleming, Ernst Ruska, Edwin H. Armstrong--that 1% of individuals who chose to think and do what was considered irrational because it was not the accepted ideology or academically approved veiw of their day.

Every advance in knowledge and achievement in history has been brought about by the less than one percent of individuals who chose to think differently than everyone else because they chose to think for themselves. and the remaining 99% always despised them.

Mencken was right about that too.
So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots. --Letter to Upton Sinclair, 14 Oct (17)
Well, at least you have a lot of company.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by Sculptor »

Science is an empty shell of knoweldge without philosophy.

Without philosophy you cannot know the value of your findings; whether they are true, or whether they have ethical meaning.

Science was once known as natural philosophy and philosophical thinking developed and honed its knowledge base through epistemology and ontology. Without the philosophy of Bacon and Aristotle; Newton and Descartes; Kant and Popper there would be no functioning science.

Science cannot kill philosophy; it is philosophy. It would be like cutting out its own heart and brain
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by Sculptor »

puto wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:06 am Stephen Hawking was a genius that is what we learned in physics class.
SH was no genius. He was a pretty good physicist, who, having nothing else in his life such as the normal distractions of walking and talking, managed to make a contribution that he would otherwise not have made.
He made some great collaborations, but was not responsible alone for any significant new insights.
He wrote great books for popular science as well as some children's fiction.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:29 pm
Unfortunately, no. If only it had!

The only true description of, "philosophical debate," was provided by H.L. Mencken:



This entire thread is proof Mencken was right.
Within the normal distribution of humans there is always a small percentile [1-3%] of irrational weirdos and you are in one of this irrational-weirdos category.
Thank you for that fine, even if unintended, complement. To be categorized with the most important individuals in history is certainly an honor.

After all it was all those individuals considered the, "irrational-weirdos," of their day, like Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Francesco Redi, Sir Isaac Newton, Christiaan Huygens, Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Edward Jenner, Alessandro Volta, John Dalton, Georg Ohm, Amedeo Avogadro, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Dmitri Mendeleev, William Crookes, J.J. Thomson, Marie Curie, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Alexander Fleming, James Chadwick, Johannes Gutenberg, Gerardus Mercator, Evangelista Torricelli, Zacharias Janssen, William Oughtred, Christiaan Huygens, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, Thomas Newcomen, John Kay, James Hargreaves, James Watt, John Wilkinson, Jesse Ramsden, John Wilkinson, Martinus van Marum, Andrew Meikle, Edmund Cartwright, Eli Whitney, Edward Jenner, Friedrich Sertürner, Robert Fulton, Nicolas Appert, Charles Babbage, William Sturgeon, John Walker, Moritz von Jacobi, John Bennet Lawes, Sir Henry Bessemer, Heinrich Geissler, Gaston Planté, Alexander Parkes, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Nobel, Nikolaus August Otto, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Sir Charles Parsons, Carl Gassner, John J. Loud, Whitcomb Judson, Rudolf Diesel, Orville and Wilbur Wright, John Ambrose Fleming, Leo Baekeland, Jacques E. Brandenberger, Alexander Fleming, Ernst Ruska, Edwin H. Armstrong--that 1% of individuals who chose to think and do what was considered irrational because it was not the accepted ideology or academically approved veiw of their day.

Every advance in knowledge and achievement in history has been brought about by the less than one percent of individuals who chose to think differently than everyone else because they chose to think for themselves. and the remaining 99% always despised them.

Mencken was right about that too.
So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots. --Letter to Upton Sinclair, 14 Oct (17)
Well, at least you have a lot of company.
Some of the above may be odd-balls, weird and unconventional but definitely not "irrational" else they would not have enable resultants that are rational.

You are only deceiving yourself with the above conflation.

Your reliance on the authority H. L Menken is laughable,
Within the normal distribution of humans there is always a small percentile [1-3%] of irrational weirdos and you are in one of this irrational-weirdos category.
Post Reply