Philosophy is actually dead because...

[SpheresOfBalance]

...it's really more a matter of psychology, isn't it?

I mean, as truthful as we can actually be, only the philosophy of mind should be studied, along with the sciences of the human mind, as therein is the only place we can come to terms with anything philosophical. To remove human inflections, deflections, fear thus bias, is the truest method of arriving, as close as we can, to the absolute truth of things. It's our psyches that dictate our beliefs. Unlock the complete understanding of the human mind, and everything finally becomes clear, all knowledge and wisdom finally seen for what it really is, unmasked of human want, desire and even need.

It might seem to some that science (child) has superseded philosophy (father), but I see the distinction as blurred. In dividing things thus, is it to better serve or complicate knowledge acquisition? If we divide all the pieces of a puzzle into different environments, can we ever see the total picture?

[Obvious Leo]

Many physicists still erroneously claim that metaphysics has no role to play in the scientific discourse and yet no scientific discourse is possible without first making some a priori metaphysical claims. One such claim is the universal doctrine of causality which requires that all effects must be preceded by causes. This claim has formed the central plank of every philosophical school in history for the simple reason that without it our universe could have no order, which contradicts the evidence. However for more than a century physics has been using models which appear to cast doubt on the validity of this a priori claim and consequently no explanation for the observed order in the cosmos exists. This can only mean that the models of physics are themselves predicated on a flawed a priori assumption regarding the ontological status of space and time, both of which are exclusively constructs of the human consciousness. Useful though it undoubtedly is to model space and time as two different representations of the same phenomenon it is logically impossible that this representation is one which is truly reflecting the nature of physical reality.

Niels Bohr made it plain that explaining the nature of physical reality was not the role of the physicist, whose task it was was to merely determine what meaningful statements he could make about the behaviour of matter and energy in the universe. This defined physics as the science of "what works", which meant that better physics was simply models of physics which worked better. However no matter how successful the models might be they simply could not be used to derive truth statements about the nature of the universe itself. Bohr was advising his colleagues in physics to stay in their own sandbox and play only with their own mathematical toys and leave the explanatory role to the philosophers and this advice was then translated into the popular vernacular as "shut up and calculate". Unfortunately, however, the philosophers were so mesmerised by the mathematical virtuosity of the physics geeks that they fell asleep at the wheel and neglected to fulfill their part of the bargain.

For this reason both physics and philosophy have effectively been moribund for a century.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





To the original poster - GREAT post.


Excellent thread topic & very well written.

Thank you for stating this.


Wish I could actually add something here but your post standing alone, does really well by itself.






.

[Jaded Sage]

Science is a collective acquisition of knowledge. Philosophy is an individual acquisition of knowledge.

But in totality, philosophy has a different, higher function than science.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




.................................................................Which is?






.

[Jaded Sage]

One is developing a disposition that is less selfish and more selfless.

[duszek]

How about cynics ?

Their philosophy is negative, they try to get most for themselves.

[Obvious Leo]

But in totality, philosophy has a different, higher function than science.

This was very much the view of Gottfried Leibniz but he regarded science and philosophy as inseparable because of it. Science was a tool which could give us knowledge about the world but only philosophy could establish the validity of such knowledge. To Leibniz truth was something which had to be more than something which could be arrived at by observation and empirical experiment. Although this was regarded as a vital condition truth also had to be deducible from metaphysical first principles and if this could not be done then the Natural Philosopher was to assume that he had interpreted his empirical data wrongly. The modern science of physics ignores this important principle by assuming that observational data alone can reveal the metaphysical first principles which underpin it, which is a complete rejection of Kant as well as Leibniz.

[Dubious]

What do "metaphysical first principles" actually mean in the context of physics? If we knew what they are aside from merely saying 'metaphysical first principles', wouldn't we already have an established TOE? How does one compare anything to a metaphysical first principle?

[Obvious Leo]

What do "metaphysical first principles" actually mean in the context of physics? If we knew what they are aside from merely saying 'metaphysical first principles', wouldn't we already have an established TOE? How does one compare anything to a metaphysical first principle?

This is a good question because physicists draw inferences from observation which they then define as metaphysical first principles. The continuum of space and time is one such example, as are the uncaused events of QM. Leibniz was adamant that this was putting the cart before the horse and could easily lead to models of physics which make no sense. Gottfried was a prophet.

[A_Seagull]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance"]...it's really more a matter of psychology, isn't it?

\/quote]

In order to understand psychology you need to understand evolution.

But there is no psychology in evolution.

[bergie15]

[quote][/quote] "In order to understand psychology you need to understand evolution." -What makes you say this?

[BigWhit]

Philosophy and science are indispensable to one another. Philosophy has a tendency to bring up the omage of old sages talking about shit that doesn't matter, but philosophy is essentially the exercise of logic. The goal of philosophy is to arrive at logical conclusions, but in order to do this we must have accurate premises. This is the realm of science. Since the subject of all philosophy is the universe, for even we are merely a part of it, science conducts experiments to determine whether or not a premise is true or false. If a premise is not true, all philosophy springing from it can only come to false conclusions by logical deduction and truth only by chance. If a premise cannot be proven correct or incorrect then all philosophy springing from it is merely speculation.

One's ability to philosophize is directly related to their ability to use sound logic. One's ability to do science is directly dependent upon how well they can isolate causes in experiments.

Without science, all we could do is speculate, without philosophy, there is no reason for science to exist.

[Dalek Prime]

Never mind.

[cladking]

Philosophy and science are indispensable to one another. Philosophy has a tendency to bring up the omage of old sages talking about shit that doesn't matter, but philosophy is essentially the exercise of logic. The goal of philosophy is to arrive at logical conclusions, but in order to do this we must have accurate premises. This is the realm of science. Since the subject of all philosophy is the universe, for even we are merely a part of it, science conducts experiments to determine whether or not a premise is true or false. If a premise is not true, all philosophy springing from it can only come to false conclusions by logical deduction and truth only by chance. If a premise cannot be proven correct or incorrect then all philosophy springing from it is merely speculation.

One's ability to philosophize is directly related to their ability to use sound logic. One's ability to do science is directly dependent upon how well they can isolate causes in experiments.

Without science, all we could do is speculate, without philosophy, there is no reason for science to exist.

I couldn't disagree more. This widespread belief is the greatest danger facing the species today.

Science can provide no firm ground because science itself is rooted in philosophy. Science doesn't reflect reality but rather only that reality that can be isolated in the lab as experiment. Science has no meaning outside of its metaphysics and philosophy.

Rather philosophy must be rooted in logic and truth as defined and seen through the lens of scientific theory and common sense. It must be consistent with mathematics as math can be applied to logic.

Your second paragraph contains great truth but it must be remembered that all ideas expressed in modern language are deconstructed by the listener and vary in truth and relevance from individual to individual.