Philosophy risks censure.

[TheVisionofEr]

If philosophy does not help human beings it deserves ultimate censure, destruction and oblivion.

[A_Seagull]

If philosophy does not help human beings it deserves ultimate censure, destruction and oblivion.

Good point.

The questions that then arise are:
1. How can you determine whether philosophy helps human beings?
2. If philosophy is deserving of destruction, how would you go about destroying it?

[Skepdick]

1. How can you determine whether philosophy helps human beings?

Same way we measure everything. Balance pros vs cons.

2. If philosophy is deserving of destruction, how would you go about destroying it?

Philosophy has been doing that all by itself - it is an eternal victim of its own success.

Natural Philosophy became physics/science.
Logic became computer science/mathematics.

As an incubator of ideas it has spawned some great ones, but it has failed to internalise them.
Philosophy has failed to stand on its own shoulders when it makes progress.

[Skepdick]

If philosophy does not help human beings it deserves ultimate censure, destruction and oblivion.

This is true in general and for any human sub-culture doing some activity.

If logic/mathematics/physics/science/medicine does not help human beings it deserves ultimate censure, destruction and oblivion.

Philosophy without technical input is sophistry, technical developments without philosophy end up answering questions nobody needs/wants answered.
It becomes Philosophy for Philosophy's sake - it exists in a vacuum and is accountable to nobody.

I think where Philosophy fell off the band-wagon is pursuing the idea of "infinite, timeless and unchanging truth". It stands in direct opposition to everything we have learned about the universe through physics/science. Science answered many of those questions, but Philosophy didn't like the answers, so Philosophy doubled down on its perspective (refusing to adopt the scientific metaphysic) re-worded the questions and tried again forever stuck playing language games, never bothering to understand what language is.

Rorty lays out this critique succinctly in this video: Philosophy & Taking Time Seriously

[Scott Mayers]

"Philosophy" is not a specific class of thought distinct from other forms of thinking. What is the alternative? Oh yeah, lets stop thinking altogether and just place emotions and strength alone as the means to behave!

I don't know why anybody thinks "philosophy" is just the set of thoughts outside of special subdivsions, like science, that many demarcate FREE thinking. If censorship (and censure) is permitted against "philosophy" as I understand it, it is anti-intellectualism and a means to entrench those with might to rule by censoring out those who might use intellectual dialect to try to appeal to others who could threaten the status quo.

By the way, if the term "censure" was meant but NOT 'censor", then this is already a property of philosophy. "Censure" means to rebuke or speak out against something one disagrees with, not the act of preventing something that the term, "censor" means.

So I'm assuming "censor" was meant, and NOT "censure"?

[Skepdick]

"Philosophy" is not a specific class of thought distinct from other forms of thinking. What is the alternative?

Would you deny that there is a distinct difference in the mode of thinking employed by Philosophers (as a general group) and the mode of thinking employed by Scientists/Engineers (as a general group)?

If there is a material, empirical, demonstrable difference in HOW one thinks then your premise is unfounded.

There are material differences between Eastern and Western Philosophy. The former focuses on verbs; the latter focuses on nouns.

The difference between verbs and nouns is the metaphysical notion of time/change. Quantum Physics is closer to Eastern than Western philosophy.

Oh yeah, lets stop thinking altogether and just place emotions and strength alone as the means to behave!

Strawman. Lets think better! All while acknowledging that reason is a slave to passion. Always is and will be.

[Scott Mayers]

"Philosophy" is not a specific class of thought distinct from other forms of thinking. What is the alternative?

Would you deny that there is a distinct difference in the mode of thinking employed by Philosophers (as a general group) and the mode of thinking employed by Scientists/Engineers (as a general group)?[/url]

My simple answer is that the distinctions just separates philosophy into subsets OF philosophy. Science, for instance, is just a politic of institutional agreement on procedures for determining physical reality using methods that are negotiated among the members who vote on what is or is not valid. Logic is the negotiating rules of the procedure of organizing thought and is the ROOT of what 'philosophy' is about.

If there is a material, empirical, demonstrable difference in HOW one thinks then your premise is unfounded.

This is a conditional statement that lacks assurances of its terms to be true or false, nor whether the implication as a whole is true or not. The division of how one opts to split philosophy up into parts doesn't mean that the whole of the subject only belongs to the political distinction. Science is a politic that deals exclusively with negotiating what physical reality is among a collection of people only. It doesn't mean that the institutional subset of philosophy we call 'science' is sufficient to discuss and analyze reality. It is 'tentative' and thus admits of its inability to draw closure of what is absolutely true or not on the most foundational level. That requires logic, not something belonging to a special class of people to vote on as to what is or is not true, no matter how popularly shared. The dialect regarding methodology itself is ONLY 'philosophy' (as in the 'philosophy of science', for instance.)

There are material differences between Eastern and Western Philosophy. The former focuses on verbs; the latter focuses on nouns.

The difference between verbs and nouns is the metaphysical notion of time/change. Quantum Physics is closer to Eastern than Western philosophy.

How does your distinction here relate to my comment?

Oh yeah, lets stop thinking altogether and just place emotions and strength alone as the means to behave!

Strawman. Lets think better! All while acknowledging that reason is a slave to passion. Always is and will be.

No, this topic is itself contradictory as titled per the meaning of "censure" being used where it is confused with "censor(ship)". If 'censure" is literally meant, then the thread is 'censuring philosophy' (meaning to insult or rebuke it). Then you and others here successfully tweeted your censure and have proven that "philosophy" not only risks censure but literally HAS been censured.

The only alternative -- and likely intent of meaning by the OP -- is to the word, "censor", meaning to discriminate by hiding or destroying something expressed by another. This thread then would be speaking about why something called, "philosophy", by the author is interpreted as something distinctly a separate part of itself, a 'contradiction' if one knows that the meaning of the word is any activity open to discussion intellectually.

Science is a philosophical subset of philosophy; Philosophy is not a subset of science. Censoring "philosophy" is to censor science, logic, or any means to discuss or debate issues of intellectual matters.

You're proving your lack of logical skill to not notice you made a critical logical fallacy of bias here. If philosophy is distinct from science, logic, or some other part of it by an obsolete interpretation you hold in your head, you just REDEFINED what it means to not BE 'philosophy' as understood by most practicing it and using the term only. This is a transference of the symbol, "philosophy" to a non-representative definition of the subject. If censorship of the subject is suggested, then either you steal away the traditional meaning of the word or are begging that others are not permitted to use it to describe the GENERAL dialectical discussions on anything collectively called 'wisdom'. If you have an evolved opinion about redefining out the term "philosophy" from our vocabulary by your selective preferred definition, then I have to ask you if you have some other word that inclusively defines the subject that hasn't already been used? If not, then let us, who use the traditional meaning of it that covers the whole branch of intellectual reflection on all things discuss-worthy keep the meaning of the word and its subject. Otherwise you are attempting to destroy the means of free thought and communication for which maybe you need to censor yourself out of this sitte as a participant or ...

...risk being censured for your irrationality!

[Skepdick]

My simple answer is that the distinctions just separates philosophy into subsets OF philosophy. Science, for instance, is just a politic of institutional agreement on procedures for determining physical reality using methods that are negotiated among the members who vote on what is or is not valid. Logic is the negotiating rules of the procedure of organizing thought and is the ROOT of what 'philosophy' is about.

For your respective definitions of "philosophy" and "science" sure.

Only, I don't understand why you think Philosophy is not an institution, but Science is.

To me - science is a metaphysic. It's a way of thinking. Nothing to do with politics/institutions.

Also to me - Philosophy is a way of thinking. Philosophy is logicism.

Logicism is to logic what scientism is to science.

This is a conditional statement that lacks assurances of its terms to be true or false, nor whether the implication as a whole is true or not.

In which system of logic did you interpret that?

The division of how one opts to split philosophy up into parts doesn't mean that the whole of the subject only belongs to the political distinction.

Then don't split it into subsets. You yourself see philosophy as a different thing to science. If you didn't - you wouldn't split them.

How does your distinction here relate to my comment?

If "everything is X" - that's just the set of all sets.
If there are sub-sets of X you are still drawing distinctions between.

No, this topic is itself contradictory as titled per the meaning of "censure" being used where it is confused with "censor(ship)".

They can be seen as one and the same thing.
They can be seen as different things.

If Philosophy is censured it can be censored. Like hate speech.

The only alternative -- and likely intent of meaning by the OP -- is to the word, "censor", meaning to discriminate by hiding or destroying something expressed by another. This thread then would be speaking about why something called, "philosophy", by the author is interpreted as something distinctly a separate part of itself, a 'contradiction' if one knows that the meaning of the word is any activity open to discussion intellectually.

You are arguing semantics, not testable consequences.

Q.E.D different ways of thinking.

Science is a philosophical subset of philosophy; Philosophy is not a subset of science. Censoring "philosophy" is to censor science, logic, or any means to discuss or debate issues of intellectual matters.

I maintain that it's the other way around. Assume ceteris paribus between science and philosophy.

If the only difference between the two disciplines is that scientists come to a consensus and Philosophers don't, that's a material difference.

A discipline that has never arrived at consensus is harmful to human relations.

You're proving your lack of logical skill to not notice you made a critical logical fallacy of bias here.

I have logical skills that far exceed your own, thank you very much

If philosophy is distinct from science, logic, or some other part of it by an obsolete interpretation you hold in your head, you just REDEFINED what it means to not BE 'philosophy' as understood by most practicing it and using the term only.

I don't think in definitions or categories. It seems that you do though....

This is a transference of the symbol, "philosophy" to a non-representative definition of the subject.

If everything is philosophy then science is philosophy.
if everything is science then philosophy is science.

Is just semantics.

[Scott Mayers]

My simple answer is that the distinctions just separates philosophy into subsets OF philosophy. Science, for instance, is just a politic of institutional agreement on procedures for determining physical reality using methods that are negotiated among the members who vote on what is or is not valid. Logic is the negotiating rules of the procedure of organizing thought and is the ROOT of what 'philosophy' is about.

For your respective definitions of "philosophy" and "science" sure.

Only, I don't understand why you think Philosophy is not an institution, but Science is.

Science is bound to specific rules that require agreement. That agreement is what is deemed, "objective". Given logically there can be no actual shared objective god's-eye perspective, the meaning of objectivity within science has to be the collective subjective agreements about shareable phenomena. That is a 'politic' because it requires a consensus of official votes of confidence to the processes and rationalization of the conclusions that devolop 'accepted' theories in question. That collective is an 'institute' as it is authorized through the set of educational and research facilities by their in-house respect and assignment of authorities deemed as 'scientist' or not.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is a general heading that includes any intellectual discourse whether it be between teen age girls discussing who is the ideal boyfriend, or to the scientist disussing what the physical universe could be made up of. The latter is just a 'formalized' philosophy discussing what the physical universe is made up of by seeking patterns in observation.

To me - science is a metaphysic. It's a way of thinking. Nothing to do with politics/institutions.

Metaphysics is what we do when we ask whether the universe begun or not using only words and common understanding anyone can technically participate in. Physics is the literal process of discovering patterns about nature without bias to metaphysical roots of causation to reality itself. There is a crossover of physicists to the metaphysics when one is creating thought experiments like Einstein had done BEFORE one attempt to seek if nature demonstrates a fitness to the proposed theories.

Also to me - Philosophy is a way of thinking. Philosophy is logicism.

Logicism is to logic what scientism is to science.

"Scientism" is a derogatory term invented by those who think that one goes beyond the critical thinking of science and/or gambles in science as valid by faith in authority. I cannot find a common use of 'logicism' outside of unconventional personal definitions. But if you are relating this in kind to 'scientism', then that could be also interpreted potentially as a derogatory abuse or overuse of logic where the user of the term may think it unnecessary. Those are subjective 'feelings' about what people believe.

[Note a Google search for me has "logicism" as a (proprietary) logic simulator for creating languages as Prolog, for instance, may be.]

This is a conditional statement that lacks assurances of its terms to be true or false, nor whether the implication as a whole is true or not.

In which system of logic did you interpret that?

I was directly responding to: "If there is a material, empirical, demonstrable difference in HOW one thinks then your premise is unfounded."
That's a conditional statement or 'implication'. I'm kind of surprised that you even asked this!??

The division of how one opts to split philosophy up into parts doesn't mean that the whole of the subject only belongs to the political distinction.

Then don't split it into subsets. You yourself see philosophy as a different thing to science. If you didn't - you wouldn't split them.

Philsophy, when dividing it up by traditional organizers of the different kinds, are things like, logic, epistemology, ontology, linguistics, science, social studies, grammar, etc. There are cross-over definitions too that differ depending on who is speaking. "Science" to me is just the general class of philosophies that deal with 'observation'. That the term 'science' derives from an old variant of the word, 'to see' in Greek and Latin, tells you that it focuses on areas that place emphasis on the senses with or without respect to analysis that deals with 'logic'. "Logic" comes from an even older meaning of "to look", though similar to what we do with the senses, it derives more specifically to the analysis of the "LOGS", a term regarding anything dealing with formal records written in scrolls (as they appear as 'logs') and the particular analysis of the data contained in them, such as taking data of observations to analyze by some organizational method in some medium.

How does your distinction here relate to my comment?

If "everything is X" - that's just the set of all sets.
If there are sub-sets of X you are still drawing distinctions between.

If I have a class/set of things under the title "philosophy", "science" is just one subset. You can partition the set between "science" and "non-science", but the tendency of many I've come across tend to demarcate logic (and math) as separate areas, especially where they adopt the pariticular philosophy of science that believes all of science is ONLY 'empirical'. But that paradigm is only the "inductive" part of logic. Many also treat math (a subset of logic) as though it were merely a 'tool'. This then means they interpret 'logic' itself as "non-science". This came about due to how you can debate circles around some issues where the 'truth' has no precise foundation, such as in politics and religion.

No, this topic is itself contradictory as titled per the meaning of "censure" being used where it is confused with "censor(ship)".

They can be seen as one and the same thing.
They can be seen as different things.

If Philosophy is censured it can be censored. Like hate speech.

Sure. That's missing the point though. If you inappropriately give a narrowed meaning to something that is broader in conventional meaning, it is also setting up a sraw-man argument for anything labeled "philosophy" by 'transference, if even remotely true, because it biases others against the broader meaning if it is justly censured for its subset. It also forces the ones who have the broader meaning into silence if they cannot reinvent a new word for the subset, "non-science philosophy". [Note there is some innuendo in this as "non-sense philosophy".] Being forced to separate science from all other philosophy in a strictly exclusive way is likely to miss that science as an 'inductive' study that is less certain than the deductive reasoning that involves math and formal logic as though the more precise measuring tool is more faulty than the imprecise ones.

What distinction between scientific philosophy and non-scientifical philosophy is more blurred than you may realize. Aborting all that is classified as 'non-science' part of philosophy just makes the term 'science' and any association of it AUTHORITIVE of all of philosophy become the old meaning of "philosophy" instead. Since you remove the validity of anything not 'scientific' as noteworthy by such exclusive interpretations, it becomes oddly abusive towards anyone NOT in those institutions that "science" is defined by. Then we reduce science to a 'church', just as the formation of the original Catholic Church did when they demanded their institution authoritative of all that is 'wise'.

The only alternative -- and likely intent of meaning by the OP -- is to the word, "censor", meaning to discriminate by hiding or destroying something expressed by another. This thread then would be speaking about why something called, "philosophy", by the author is interpreted as something distinctly a separate part of itself, a 'contradiction' if one knows that the meaning of the word is any activity open to discussion intellectually.

You are arguing semantics, not testable consequences.

Q.E.D different ways of thinking.

It's an important point given that I personally have witnessed of real issues with those who bully and troll on supposed "science" forums that demand people default a 'faith' in the Standard Model or risk censure AND censor. I dare anyone to simply use the title of a thread like, "Einstein was Wrong" and expect it not to be censored out regardless of its actual content. I take very strong concern about HOW one CENSORS. Censure (as mere rebuke) is better but can also be abused by trolling as a form of indirect 'censor' as it prevents those speaking by heckling them.

Science is a philosophical subset of philosophy; Philosophy is not a subset of science. Censoring "philosophy" is to censor science, logic, or any means to discuss or debate issues of intellectual matters.

I maintain that it's the other way around. Assume ceteris paribus between science and philosophy.

If the only difference between the two disciplines is that scientists come to a consensus and Philosophers don't, that's a material difference.

A discipline that has never arrived at consensus is harmful to human relations.[/quote]
That's just plain false. Is TRUTH about reality dependent upon a democratic vote? The practical distinction is politics and power. The tendency for abuse runs in cycles whereby some original system of thought (philosophy) begins with sincerity but then becomes laden in bureacracy, religion, and abuse at a later period. Take 'science' as originally something anyone was encouraged to partipate in. Take one sub-issue that coincides with this factor, like how one can use chemistry to make illegal drugs. Then you get the law that blocks free access to education in chemistry and even the simplest of professional equipment that would be required for one to freely experiment outside of institutions. You can't and so are forced to go THROUGH those institutes in order to be even POTENTIALLY able to experiment. But this costs money and time and a willingness to submit to a formal authoritative process even to merely do what used to be as simple as going to your pharmacist within a few hours to do. This eventual barrier becomes obsolete for those who cannot afford or be permitted to participate in the very original genesis of the scientific philosophy it began with.

Consensus is politics because we are required to hand the power over to an authoritative class of people, similar to the "college voting" system of the United States Presidential election in which the majority vote by the people don't count, but the college of representive 'wise' people who used to be understood as qualified are no longer able to determine IF they are wiser to take on the veto.

You're proving your lack of logical skill to not notice you made a critical logical fallacy of bias here.

I have logical skills that far exceed your own, thank you very much

You made a critical error regarding a very fundamental concept that I am shocked about regarding conditionals. Why do you conveniently leave the statement you said to which I was responding to out of the quote if not for being deceptive?

I am also confident in my own capability and don't use deceptive tactics to hide whatever flaws I have. Own your error. Don't try to turn the onus on me!

If philosophy is distinct from science, logic, or some other part of it by an obsolete interpretation you hold in your head, you just REDEFINED what it means to not BE 'philosophy' as understood by most practicing it and using the term only.

I don't think in definitions or categories. It seems that you do though....

Another odd thing to say ?? What texts do you learn from?

This is a transference of the symbol, "philosophy" to a non-representative definition of the subject.

If everything is philosophy then science is philosophy.
if everything is science then philosophy is science.

Is just semantics.

Equivocation. I already pointed this error out above. If you dictate that the whole of philosophy should ONLY be 'science', this is your biased baggage to deal with, not mine. Philosophy is the generic class of all intellectual pursuits collectively. Science is a subset and incomplete without its complement.

[Skepdick]

Science is bound to specific rules that require agreement.

I don't know why I have to say this again: that is YOUR conception of science. It's not my conception of science. I side with Paul Feyerabend here - epistemic anarchism.

That agreement is what is deemed, "objective". Given logically there can be no actual shared objective god's-eye perspective, the meaning of objectivity within science has to be the collective subjective agreements about shareable phenomena.

Yeah. No. Galileo, Newton and Einstein had done science before anybody agreed with their results.

That is a 'politic' because it requires a consensus of official votes of confidence to the processes and rationalization of the conclusions that devolop 'accepted' theories in question. That collective is an 'institute' as it is authorized through the set of educational and research facilities by their in-house respect and assignment of authorities deemed as 'scientist' or not.

This is by YOUR CONCEPTION of science. I do not care for YOUR CONCEPTION of science because it is the polar opposite of MY CONCEPTION.

Science is a metaphysic. Way of thinking. It's subjective and individualistic. It is unscrupulous epistemic opportunism (Einstein's words).

Philosophy, on the other hand, is a general heading that includes any intellectual discourse whether it be between teen age girls discussing who is the ideal boyfriend, or to the scientist disussing what the physical universe could be made up of. The latter is just a 'formalized' philosophy discussing what the physical universe is made up of by seeking patterns in observation.

What you call "philosophy" sounds like informal, every-day conversation to me.

Metaphysics is what we do when we ask whether the universe begun or not using only words and common understanding anyone can technically participate in.

That may be your conception. It's not mine. Logic is metaphysics. And more precisely the logic-construction is metaphysics. And meta-meta-physics and meta-meta-meta-physics. Or however many levels of recursion deep you want to go down (once you figure out I've framed the argument).

Physics is the literal process of discovering patterns about nature without bias to metaphysical roots of causation to reality itself. There is a crossover of physicists to the metaphysics when one is creating thought experiments like Einstein had done BEFORE one attempt to seek if nature demonstrates a fitness to the proposed theories.

It helps nothing to discover stuff if you can't use your results later. If you can't remember your conclusions and draw insights.

That's what formulas are for. Mental shortcuts.

"Scientism" is a derogatory term invented by those who think that one goes beyond the critical thinking of science and/or gambles in science as valid by faith in authority. I cannot find a common use of 'logicism' outside of unconventional personal definitions.

How hard did you look? There is an entire wiki page on Logicism.

But if you are relating this in kind to 'scientism', then that could be also interpreted potentially as a derogatory abuse or overuse of logic where the user of the term may think it unnecessary. Those are subjective 'feelings' about what people believe.

I am intending it as derogatory. I am not sure how you might arrive at any assertions of "logic being used, abused or overused".

I use logic precisely how I mean to use it and precisely for the purposes I need it. I construct models of the world with it.
In as much as it's a useful thing to do that - classical logic is useless to me.

That's a conditional statement or 'implication'. I'm kind of surprised that you even asked this!??

Yes, but the empirical implication produces the mental distinction e.g the category. The sentence doesn't produce the implication.

Q.E.D Logicism.

Philsophy, when dividing it up by traditional organizers of the different kinds, are things like, logic, epistemology, ontology, linguistics, science, social studies, grammar, etc.

That's computer science to me. Philosophy (and philosophers) know nothing about these things. They don't have re-usable formal models for any of the above words.

There are cross-over definitions too that differ depending on who is speaking. "Science" to me is just the general class of philosophies that deal with 'observation'. That the term 'science' derives from an old variant of the word, 'to see' in Greek and Latin, tells you that it focuses on areas that place emphasis on the senses with or without respect to analysis that deals with 'logic'. "Logic" comes from an even older meaning of "to look",

Not sure where you get your etymologies from . Logic comes from Logos. Which is Greek for "the word" or "speech".

Looking comes before speaking. Ergo science comes before logic.

though similar to what we do with the senses, it derives more specifically to the analysis of the "LOGS", a term regarding anything dealing with formal records written in scrolls (as they appear as 'logs') and the particular analysis of the data contained in them, such as taking data of observations to analyze by some organizational method in some medium.

So language then... Logic/logos is language.

Lucky me! I have a background in computational linguistics. So again. Science before Philosophy...

If I have a class/set of things under the title "philosophy", "science" is just one subset.

Similarly, if I have a class/set of things under the title "science", then "philosophy" is just one subset.

And now we can argue over the Universal set!!! Whose universal set is more universal?

You can partition the set between "science" and "non-science", but the tendency of many I've come across tend to demarcate logic (and math) as separate areas, especially where they adopt the pariticular philosophy of science that believes all of science is ONLY 'empirical'.

Logic/mathematics are grammatical concerns. Nothing more to it. Formal Grammars are the field of computer science/linguistics.

But that paradigm is only the "inductive" part of logic. Many also treat math (a subset of logic) as though it were merely a 'tool'. This then means they interpret 'logic' itself as "non-science". This came about due to how you can debate circles around some issues where the 'truth' has no precise foundation, such as in politics and religion.

Math, logic, squigglies on paper. Formal grammars. ALL of them.

Formal grammars (and their empirical behaviour) are the field of computer science.

Sure. That's missing the point though. If you inappropriately give a narrowed meaning to something that is broader in conventional meaning, it is also setting up a sraw-man argument for anything labeled "philosophy" by 'transference, if even remotely true, because it biases others against the broader meaning if it is justly censured for its subset.

You speak about broader and narrower meanings as if meaning is objective. I must ask again: what semantics are you using for your assertions?

It also forces the ones who have the broader meaning into silence if they cannot reinvent a new word for the subset, "non-science philosophy". [Note there is some innuendo in this as "non-sense philosophy".] Being forced to separate science from all other philosophy in a strictly exclusive way is likely to miss that science as an 'inductive' study that is less certain than the deductive reasoning that involves math and formal logic as though the more precise measuring tool is more faulty than the imprecise ones.

This is a mis-representation. Everything that you call "facts" or "truth" (which is the starting point of deductive reasoning) has been obtained via induction/observation fist.

What are you deducing WITH if you don't have truth?

What distinction between scientific philosophy and non-scientifical philosophy is more blurred than you may realize. Aborting all that is classified as 'non-science' part of philosophy just makes the term 'science' and any association of it AUTHORITIVE of all of philosophy become the old meaning of "philosophy" instead. Since you remove the validity of anything not 'scientific' as noteworthy by such exclusive interpretations, it becomes oddly abusive towards anyone NOT in those institutions that "science" is defined by. Then we reduce science to a 'church', just as the formation of the original Catholic Church did when they demanded their institution authoritative of all that is 'wise'.

Or you can shrink any distinction and call them both out. Science and Philosophy - both church.

It's an important point given that I personally have witnessed of real issues with those who bully and troll on supposed "science" forums that demand people default a 'faith' in the Standard Model or risk censure AND censor.

Every system must defend its axioms. No axioms - no system.

Which is why I have a system which is founded on the lack of axioms. Much more stable foundation

I dare anyone to simply use the title of a thread like, "Einstein was Wrong" and expect it not to be censored out regardless of its actual content. I take very strong concern about HOW one CENSORS. Censure (as mere rebuke) is better but can also be abused by trolling as a form of indirect 'censor' as it prevents those speaking by heckling them.

Why not? Surely, those who speak and say nothing of value should be heckled?

That's just plain false. Is TRUTH about reality dependent upon a democratic vote?

I am an anti-realist. Your dogma does not concern me. If TRUTH is not valuable, then I don't need it.

The practical distinction is politics and power. The tendency for abuse runs in cycles whereby some original system of thought (philosophy) begins with sincerity but then becomes laden in bureacracy, religion, and abuse at a later period. Take 'science' as originally something anyone was encouraged to partipate in. Take one sub-issue that coincides with this factor, like how one can use chemistry to make illegal drugs. Then you get the law that blocks free access to education in chemistry and even the simplest of professional equipment that would be required for one to freely experiment outside of institutions. You can't and so are forced to go THROUGH those institutes in order to be even POTENTIALLY able to experiment. But this costs money and time and a willingness to submit to a formal authoritative process even to merely do what used to be as simple as going to your pharmacist within a few hours to do. This eventual barrier becomes obsolete for those who cannot afford or be permitted to participate in the very original genesis of the scientific philosophy it began with.

So the only reason you believe in the concept of "truth" is to mitigate the negative consequences of political power?

That sure sounds like a political stance to me. And "truth" sure sounds like a political symbol...

Consensus is politics because we are required to hand the power over to an authoritative class of people, similar to the "college voting" system of the United States Presidential election in which the majority vote by the people don't count, but the college of representive 'wise' people who used to be understood as qualified are no longer able to determine IF they are wiser to take on the veto.

Which is why I do science. Individualism. Extreme subjectivism. Political independence. Where I don't need consensus - reality tells me if I am right or wrong immediately

I get rewarded with correct predictions if I am right.
I get punished with incorrect predictions if I am wrong.

You made a critical error regarding a very fundamental concept that I am shocked about regarding conditionals. Why do you conveniently leave the statement you said to which I was responding to out of the quote if not for being deceptive?

Because you don't get to determine what an "error" is on my behalf? For me to accept your assessment, first we need to arrive at consensus. What is an "error"?

Politics, you see.

I am also confident in my own capability and don't use deceptive tactics to hide whatever flaws I have. Own your error. Don't try to turn the onus on me!

I own my errors. I haven't made any. In so far as you see any errors - I am going to bet money it's just mis-communication or a mis-understanding between us.

Asserting "error" upon another's self-expression is the first trick up the censor's sleeve.

Another odd thing to say ?? What texts do you learn from?

I don't learn from texts. I learn from practice. People who write texts who haven't done any empiricism don't know much (if anything) about learning or knowledge.

Equivocation. I already pointed this error out above. If you dictate that the whole of philosophy should ONLY be 'science', this is your biased baggage to deal with, not mine.

I am not equivocating. I am Multi-vocating. I've given you two perspectives - I can construct a thousand more.

You haven't pointed out any "errors". You've pointed out things that you disagree with. Your disagreement has been noted, examined, evaluated and discarded as "not valuable".

Philosophy is the generic class of all intellectual pursuits collectively. Science is a subset and incomplete without its complement.

Science is the generic class of all intellectual pursuits collectively. Philosophy is a subset and incomplete without its complement.

If your perspective is valid, so is mine. What now? How do we get to this "consensus" thing you preach?

[Scott Mayers]

Science is bound to specific rules that require agreement.

I don't know why I have to say this again: that is YOUR conception of science. It's not my conception of science. I side with Paul Feyerabend here - epistemic anarchism.

My conception of "science"? No. Take your view to a science forum and state what you do to debate this. I told you what 'science' as an institute is, not what I'd prefer it to be. I've already wasted time with the very debate regarding the INTENTIONAL understanding of science that I believe SHOULD be more open with others IN science. While you or I might share agreement to the actual intentional virtue of science as practiced by the Modernists, we live in the Post-modern era of science and you cannot bury your head in the sand about the reality of it as an institute. When one does "science" on their own, this is as distinct as one directly witnessing some miracle occur. It is unaccountable if it cannot be shared. Thus, you can potentially witness some event or personal experiment you set up as your personal 'science' but it is inappropriate to assert is as 'science' FORMALLY without it being shared by others. The activity of science is a communal project and why I pointed out its institutional nature.

That agreement is what is deemed, "objective". Given logically there can be no actual shared objective god's-eye perspective, the meaning of objectivity within science has to be the collective subjective agreements about shareable phenomena.

Yeah. No. Galileo, Newton and Einstein had done science before anybody agreed with their results.

You need to actually read what I write here and elsewhere. I actually learned in these scientists' foundational ways. That foundational approach begins with studying philosophy as a foundation to clear thinking. Today's paradigm is to different. AFTER Einstein, the new paradigm for learning science disrespects initializing your learning by beginning with logic and free thought that "philosophy" refers to. Instead, the process in scientific education flips the role of philosophy to be at the level of a Ph.D. (philosophical doctrine). You can't even be permitted to write a paper in undergraduate courses that utilize your 'free' thoughts as they expect you to only reference other people's works as you are expected to develop your clerical skills of DOING science with priority.

That is a 'politic' because it requires a consensus of official votes of confidence to the processes and rationalization of the conclusions that devolop 'accepted' theories in question. That collective is an 'institute' as it is authorized through the set of educational and research facilities by their in-house respect and assignment of authorities deemed as 'scientist' or not.

This is by YOUR CONCEPTION of science. I do not care for YOUR CONCEPTION of science because it is the polar opposite of MY CONCEPTION.

Again, NOT MINE! You seem to merely disagree with whatever I might say and impose something upon me that isn't appropriate.

Science is a metaphysic. Way of thinking. It's subjective and individualistic. It is unscrupulous epistemic opportunism (Einstein's words).

No, metaphysics IS the philosophical dialectic on physical foundations apriori with no need for actual experimenting nor observation; where 'science' is an activity of observation and experimenting with priority. While I agree with Einstein's foundational approach, it is NOT the paradigm of today's accepted procedure within it. There is no formal qualification to speculate and do thought experiments via metaphysics. It is properly distinct from the activity of observing and testing theories that science is about.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is a general heading that includes any intellectual discourse whether it be between teen age girls discussing who is the ideal boyfriend, or to the scientist disussing what the physical universe could be made up of. The latter is just a 'formalized' philosophy discussing what the physical universe is made up of by seeking patterns in observation.

What you call "philosophy" sounds like informal, every-day conversation to me.

Ding Ding!! But more than this, it is ANY intellectual thinking and is not JUST the informal. It is the process of thinking things from scratch. It is SELF-discovery of what becomes knowledge by natural stages of immature speculation to organized thought. It is what developed logic, geometry, math, and rhetoric from the early stages of trivial discussions into what has become all Univsersal knowlege. Universities ARE 'philosophical' institutes that generally divide philosophy into two general areas: science and the liberal arts. This is not absolute as there are areas that are borderline 'sciences', such as the social sciences of politics, economics, law, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archeology, etc. The 'hard' sciences are anything of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. Logic is taught in ALL areas. Computer Sciences are both hard and soft and more divided forms of logic, but not necessarily universal. Discrete Math, is another different classification of logic, You will find many different studies of logic in every area, whether as science or art.

I have to break. I'm getting cramped up.


If I don't get back right away, note that I relooked to see that "logicism" is listed. I was thrown off by Google forcing me to European English even though Canada is more close to the U.S.. I saw its British means of expressing it and assumed it was something relating to a literal computer program. I happen to agree to its definition and what I would also hold to likely. I just never used that word and missed the connection. And THAT is still a 'proprietary' expression of some person or person's PHILOSOPHY!! In philosophy, two different authors could have completely different words to describe the same thing just as in the point about Discrete Math, Computer Science, and Critical thinking are all 'logic' but more specifically aimed to different approaches for different degrees of study.

Later.

[Skepdick]

My conception of "science"? No. Take your view to a science forum and state what you do to debate this. I told you what 'science' as an institute is, not what I'd prefer it to be. I've already wasted time with the very debate regarding the INTENTIONAL understanding of science that I believe SHOULD be more open with others IN science.

You are still defending a conception of the notion of "science" that I don't care for. Worse, you are defending a conception/definition that you claim is not your definition.

Seems to me you have bestowed some ontological status to "science". You are allowed to do that. And I am allowed to ignore you.

Science is a metaphysic. It's about constructing models of the natural world.

That is my conception. Take it or leave it.

While you or I might share agreement to the actual intentional virtue of science as practiced by the Modernists, we live in the Post-modern era of science and you cannot bury your head in the sand about the reality of it as an institute.

I can. I do. The institute/institution of science does not interest me.

When one does "science" on their own, this is as distinct as one directly witnessing some miracle occur. It is unaccountable if it cannot be shared.

The scientific metaphysic does not deal with miracles. Only phenomena. An observed phenomenon may or may not be accountable. It may or may not be shareable. Those things get determined afterwards.

Thus, you can potentially witness some event or personal experiment you set up as your personal 'science' but it is inappropriate to assert is as 'science' FORMALLY without it being shared by others. The activity of science is a communal project and why I pointed out its institutional nature.

Why? It's testable, repeatable and falsifiable. It meets the criteria of the scientific epistemology.

If it's useful to me - it's knowledge. The social aspect is neither here nor there.
If my finding is also useful to you - use it. If it's not - don't use it.

You need to actually read what I write here and elsewhere. I actually learned in these scientists' foundational ways. That foundational approach begins with studying philosophy as a foundation to clear thinking.

I haven't met a single clear-thinking Philosopher in my life. Most carry the baggage of logicism - they are slaves to logic, not its master.

Today's paradigm is to different. AFTER Einstein, the new paradigm for learning science disrespects initializing your learning by beginning with logic and free thought that "philosophy" refers to.

Logic and free thought is an oxymoron. Logic is a prison for the mind. Logic is the formulation of your results AFTER you have discovered them.
The purpose of formulating things logically is so that they can be communicated to another person.

Knowledge for private use need not be logical or formalised.

Again, NOT MINE! You seem to merely disagree with whatever I might say and impose something upon me that isn't appropriate.

Then why are you so vehemently committed to that conception? Why are you defending that conception when neither of us subscribes to it?!?!? Use your own!

No, metaphysics IS the philosophical dialectic on physical foundations apriori with no need for actual experimenting nor observation; where 'science' is an activity of observation and experimenting with priority.

Wow! Which textbook did you copy-paste this from?

Logic is metaphysics: https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf

It's the ability to formulate and express Platonic forms. It's constructive in nature.

While I agree with Einstein's foundational approach, it is NOT the paradigm of today's accepted procedure within it.

You mean it doesn't agree with the present-day dogma? That's precisely true science is subjective!

Epistemic anarchism!

There is no formal qualification to speculate and do thought experiments via metaphysics. It is properly distinct from the activity of observing and testing theories that science is about.

There is no formal qualification to be a scientist either. Anybody can just DO science. Any distinction you draw is just in your head.

They are all just thinking tools.

What you call "philosophy" sounds like informal, every-day conversation to me.

Ding Ding!! But more than this, it is ANY intellectual thinking and is not JUST the informal. It is the process of thinking things from scratch.
[/quote]
It seems you can't make up your mind. Is philosophy conversation (e.g interactive/social) or is it thinking things from scratch.

It can't be both. Two cannot "start from scratch" - at the very least they need a shared language.

One person can start from scratch - one person can invent their own language. From scratch.

Meanwhile, my scientific perspective is that dialogue adheres to the rules of game theory/dialogical logic:
We have formal, scientific models for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogical_logic

They work.

It is SELF-discovery of what becomes knowledge by natural stages of immature speculation to organized thought. It is what developed logic, geometry, math, and rhetoric from the early stages of trivial discussions into what has become all Univsersal knowlege. Universities ARE 'philosophical' institutes that generally divide philosophy into two general areas: science and the liberal arts. This is not absolute as there are areas that are borderline 'sciences', such as the social sciences of politics, economics, law, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archeology, etc. The 'hard' sciences are anything of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. Logic is taught in ALL areas. Computer Sciences are both hard and soft and more divided forms of logic, but not necessarily universal. Discrete Math, is another different classification of logic, You will find many different studies of logic in every area, whether as science or art.

And you will find that an autodidact (such as myself) doesn't care about your categorization scheme.



I have to break. I'm getting cramped up.

And THAT is still a 'proprietary' expression of some person or person's PHILOSOPHY!!

You are attributing agency to philosophy...Philosophy doesn't express itself. Humans do. Using languages.

Formal or informal.

In philosophy, two different authors could have completely different words to describe the same thing just as in the point about Discrete Math, Computer Science, and Critical thinking are all 'logic' but more specifically aimed to different approaches for different degrees of study.

One author can have two different words to describe the same thing also.
One author can have multiple mathematical equations to describe the same thing also.

Philosophies (really: alternate perspectives) are a very useful tool to a scientist! The more philosophies I am familiar with - the more perspectives at my disposal.

[Scott Mayers]

Skepdick, you misquoted me for something you said above and with you as saying what I said. Can you repair this mess:

What you call "philosophy" sounds like informal, every-day conversation to me. <-- Skepdick said, not me

Ding Ding!! But more than this, it is ANY intellectual thinking and is not JUST the informal. It is the process of thinking things from scratch. <--- I said, not you
[(/)quote]
It seems you can't make up your mind. Is philosophy conversation (e.g interactive/social) or is it thinking things from scratch.

As to whatever you are disagreeing with me on, I don't get. You at one point assert being 'logical' then trash 'logic'. I can't continue speaking with you for being too flippant. If everything I have to say is just some competition for you to disagree better, I'm done trying with you. I would like to see some contructive discussion that I can see is not going to happen with you.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, you misquoted me for something you said above and with you as saying what I said. Can you repair this mess:

Not necessary to repair. Read it as if it wasn't mis-quoted (exactly as you annotated it). That's how I engaged with it.

As to whatever you are disagreeing with me on, I don't get.

I am not sure what it is that you don't get Scott. I explained it to you in as clear terms as I know how.

The way I see it: Philosophy and Science are mostly exactly the same. People talking to each other doing stuff.
Starting with the 'ceteris paribus' premise the most notable difference between Philosophy and Science that I can put my finger on is game-theoretic.

In the game of Philosophy the players strategise towards winning arguments.
In the game of Science the players strategise towards agreement/consensus.

In the language of game theory: Philosophy is competitive (Prisoner's dilemma), Science is cooperative.

Which game do you want to play?

You at one point assert being 'logical' then trash 'logic'. I can't continue speaking with you for being too flippant.

I am not flippant! I am being consistently inconsistent. I have openly told you that I care about logic, just not classical logic, or any axiomatic system for that matter.

Axiomatics is the poor man’s logic --Jean-Yves Girard

That's exactly as inconsistent (flippant?) as you are (least you want to commit special pleading; or a no true scotsman fallacy), the only difference is that I am honest about it.

I am human - I dunno what the fuck is going on around us. We have a bunch of theories - they all fall terribly short of the mark.

If everything I have to say is just some competition for you to disagree better, I'm done trying with you.

The choice is yours, Scott.

Do you want us to play Philosophy or Science?

I would like to see some contructive discussion that I can see is not going to happen with you.

Ohhhhhh! You want to have a constructive discussion? It sounds to me like you want us to engage in Science, not Philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

I am cool with that! I am a scientist and a constructivist.

So, my first question: What are we constructing and why?

[surreptitious57]

Philosophy is defined as the love of all wisdom so there should be zero need to have it destroyed if it can actually provide any such wisdom
Which is specifically wisdom pertaining to the human condition and the best way for human beings to live both individually and collectively
Although there are no right or wrong answers in philosophy for all it can do is to make sure that the right type of questions are being asked