Yes, there was a shift, the questions were not answered by philosophy, but by science, and you can argue, very well indeed, if you want to, that the philosophical questions ceased to be philosophical questions and became scientific questions. Do you agree with that?
I do agree.
hajrafradi wrote:If you exclude "answerables" from philosophy, then you exclude the entire discipline of logic.
I do not entirely agree.
A subject must have a certain type of question to answer ('what happened in the past?' = History; 'Does God have nipples?' = Theology ).
A subject must also have internal questions about what is the correct way to address its particular questions (read the Bible and look for a nipple count vs pray and ask the potentially benippled deity directly). I think it is fair to say that over time every subject changes its methodical approach here and there.
Philosophy's internal questions tend to revolve around logic and conceptual organisational factors. So logic for purposes of philosophising seems like an area where philosophy can deliver answers. On the whole I think our team gets to call dibs on logic. But I wouldn't want to get stabbed by angry mathematicians so I may have to be flexible there.
hajrafradi wrote:Therefore I humbly must report that I can accept Isiah's Berlin's definition of philosophy (with the provision that we can't answer philosophical questions or even know what they look like, if we only use philosophy, which he did not actually state in your quoted version) but it does not prove me wrong; it does not prove that philosophical questions can't be answered; and the proof fails with my propositions, which states that philosophy and science (and religion) have common, overlapping areas of scrutiny. If one discipline answers the other's question, then it is clear that they have overlapping areas of scrutiny.
I am certain that they often discuss the same phenomena. But do they actually answer each other's questions?
If a question can properly be described as religious, I feel it probably has some kind of spiritual or supernatural connotation.
If a question is properly defined as scientific, it has some kind of, well, you know, science stuff with experimental observations, or data or something.
A valid science question though can never have any supernatural component, if that supernatural thing is some form on unmeasurable entity that is not subject to physical causation.
If a religious leader asks a question that has no supernatural component, one which can be answered by scientific method, it wasn't a religious question, it was just a religious person asking a science question.
I differ with you on the question on what religion uses. You excluded observation. Religion uses observation heavily in its system.
Please reconstruct your opinion on this.
Religion and theology are works of people with eyes in their heads and the ability to incorporate observation into things that they do.
I'm sure that observation has some part in both the questions they ask and the answers they proffer. I'm surprised this needs explicit statement.
I am not familiar with any scientific observations being part of religion, obviously there's some pretty weird religions out there so some silly man is bound to be worshipping a test tube as I write these words. But for instance, if we are to consider the activities of Scientology to be a matter of religion, this on its own seems like a reason to doubt that they are rigorously scientific.
Literary theory isn't about observation of the real world, but I'm fairly sure lit crits do mention various observations on occasion. That doesn't make their subject overlap in any way with science.
hajrafradi wrote: FlashDangerpants wrote:
hajrafradi wrote:I know that logic can't be false.
I am tempted to ask what the logical foundation of that claim would be. I hope it wouldn't be a dogma or, worse, something sort of circular.
Wow... you are "tempted" to mistake circular reasoning for systems that use axioms. I hope you are not "tempted" too much. And fear not, your hope has come true: it wouldn't be, it is not, a dogma, or worse, something sort of circular.
If logic cannot be false, does this entail that whatever is logical must be true?
There are plenty of people who would argue about that with you.
It's not my thing really. I just noticed a rather bold and dangly claim so I poked it because I am an arsehole.
If you fancy an argument on that subject I probably won't bother joining in that one.
I wouldn't go with the axiom thing though if I were you, you will only end up having to argue in a circle that this is logical.
hajrafradi wrote:I am sorry to have sounded sarcastic, but your style is very slippery. You don't come out and make a claim; you make as if you made a claim, but if someone takes you to task, your wording will excuse you, you can say, "I only said I was TEMPTED" to think", etc. I find your style weasely, and I say so without meaning to offend. You make innuendos, but you don't have the guts, so to speak, to stand behind your words, so you make a non-committal statement each time. This is disconcerting, you sound weasely, I say this without trying to offend you, and you sound dishonest(*), inasmuch as you don't commit to your opinions, but you leave an escape route for yourself.
(*) Dishonest, to the extent ONLY that you only seem to make a statement while not make it at the same time and in the same respect.
Meh, I'm not that committed to most of the positions I've taken here so far. I am presenting what I currently consider the most plausible position in the matter, but with awareness that there might be something in there I haven't thought of yet. That strikes me as another way of saying I am open to persuasion if you have sound logical arguments to present. But they should be tested, no?
That said, I am generally of the opinion that it is bad science to even consider a religious question as as a candidate for scientific scrutiny because of all the supernatural gubbins that is excluded from that art. I similarly consider religious types who resort to pseudo scientific arguments against evolution to be straying from their patch in bad faith. If their religion tells them that the Earth is X years old or whatever, then observational proof is beside the point, they believe God did it, that's all they should need to believe on the matter.
As far as I know, this is the first time I have ever agreed with tbeiter. It's not terribly likely to happen again for a while. But I could be wrong on either count. Forgive me, I am learning to live with my magnificent fallibility.
If I don't show sufficient commitment to a point I make, you may consider that weasel like. But you are treating a mode of inquiry as a pissing contest. I just don't care enough about winning or losing for that.
hajrafradi wrote: FlashDangerpants wrote:
I don't quote links to volumes of readings for others to jump onto and forcing them to read to accept my points. I state my points concisely, in a fluid and literary manner, which make sense. I don't employ the fallacious argument of forcing others to accept my point of view by telling them to go and read books. In fact, if I can't make a point, without quoting a link, then I don't make a point.
While I see the sense in complaining that tbieter doesn't bother putting much of his own effort into making his points (you aren't the first to point this failing out), that's a pretty glowing review you just gave yourself there.
I know I had sounded haughty there. But please forgive me, I was carried away by my anger at the even more haughty, albeit not sounding so, instructions by tbieter directing me to read books to see his point. Hence my haughtiness.
Incidentally, if you disagree with the review in question, then please, I would like to hear your precise criticism, instead of your sarcastically-inclined innuendo.
I'm not familiar with the Oakeshott book.
And frankly I don't understand the point of the Nautilus link in this convo at all. If anything it provides a guide to a potential argument against his, and my points about non-overlapping enquiries (from the limited perspective of branches of science competing to answer similar questions). It strikes me as a poorly chosen link, but it isn't very long and in a self contained way it is quite interesting.