Physics anyone?

[scspkr99]

I agree with a lot of that though I don't know we can subject philosophy to the same scientific method that we subject science to. It seems we get the same problems that where evident with positivism in that there method could not be used to defend itself and so in terms of defining the scientific method we need something that's separate.

Like I agree with a lot of what you're writing but I don't agree that conscience is a biological construct. If it were it seems it wouldn't be so diverse.

[Genevieve]

What exists in nature are behaviors that we would describe as empathic or altruistic or 'moral'. Morality is a matter of judgement and this type of judgement is as far as we know only passed by humans. I always say, a world without humans wouldn't be better. It wouldn't be worse either. It would be nothing because no one's there to judge.

I think philosophy and science are quite different. Philosophy seeks questions, science seeks answers. Science stumbles on questions and philosophy on answers in their pursuit of either, but they're in support of the other. To me it seems like in philosophy, the process is a lot more important than the answer, because the process is the answer.

I don't believe that philosophy is the ying to science's yang either. I think philosophy deals with every facet of existence, not just the empirically provable aspects.

What scientists consider themselves shouldn't factor that much. Jihadists proclaim themselves peace-keepers or a force of good. Lemmy from Motörhead doesn't think he's in a metal band, but a rock & roll one. People's view of themselves is often influenced by ego.

[magma]

If we put theology to one side (can be argued to be non-scientific), I don't think there's much difference between a philosophical investigation and a scientific one... they both adhere to the scientific method as described by ; they just take on different sorts of problems. The same way that Maths, Physics, Biology and Chemistry deal with different sorts of problems. They're all sciences.

Thats not really true. The scientific method requires measurable and empirical evidence, philosophy doesnt necessarily. The scientific method is only one method of crafting knowledge (a good one) but philosophy covers all of them.

...and logical thought surely constitutes empirical evidence? As long as you're not making leaps in logic (and therefore being a bad philosopher) you are adhering to the scientific method. They'll teach you that in your first philosophy lesson, too...

Like I agree with a lot of what you're writing but I don't agree that conscience is a biological construct. If it were it seems it wouldn't be so diverse.

Because something can change, is it not biological? Not everyone's leg will break when kicked hard in the thigh, but it doesn't stop a broken leg being a biological phenomenon. Given that every thought you have (whether that's "Abortion is bad" or "Abortion is good") is created as a result of conditions within your brain then there is no thought you could have that isn't as a result of a natural process... sure, not every brain or opinion is identical, but neither is every rat, every eyeball or every person's taste in music - they're all still natural phenomena though, surely?

[magma]

What exists in nature are behaviors that we would describe as empathic or altruistic or 'moral'. Morality is a matter of judgement and this type of judgement is as far as we know only passed by humans. I always say, a world without humans wouldn't be better. It wouldn't be worse either. It would be nothing because no one's there to judge.

We've covered this discussion A LOT.

The most relevant study I can think of is probably the morality in babies experiment - show a newborn (well, as close as possible - can't walk or talk yet) a cartoon of two characters sharing and when they're offered a puppet, they'll want to make friends. Show a cartoon of one of the characters refusing to share and they will refuse to make friends with the corresponding puppet.

Human kids understand at least some examples of right and wrong straight out of the womb - and unless you want to argue that humanity is an entirely separate strain of evolution from the rest of the animal kingdom, this must also occur in animals.

Tbh, your whole post is pretty confused. Philosophy only seeks questions so it can try to answer them! That assumption sounds like something a bored schoolkid would say when presented with something daft like the "One Hand Clapping" or "Tree falling in the woods" problems that kids get told are "philosophical" by people who don't like philosophy.

[jorge]

If we put theology to one side (can be argued to be non-scientific), I don't think there's much difference between a philosophical investigation and a scientific one... they both adhere to the scientific method as described by ; they just take on different sorts of problems. The same way that Maths, Physics, Biology and Chemistry deal with different sorts of problems. They're all sciences.

Thats not really true. The scientific method requires measurable and empirical evidence, philosophy doesnt necessarily. The scientific method is only one method of crafting knowledge (a good one) but philosophy covers all of them.

...and logical thought surely constitutes empirical evidence? As long as you're not making leaps in logic (and therefore being a bad philosopher) you are adhering to the scientific method. They'll teach you that in your first philosophy lesson, too...

Nope thats not actually true. Logical thought is applied to empirical evidence in the scientific method but its is not empirical by itself.

Empirical evidence is aquired through observation and experimentation.

they also teach you about a priori and a posteriori in your first philosophy lesson

[Genevieve]

What exists in nature are behaviors that we would describe as empathic or altruistic or 'moral'. Morality is a matter of judgement and this type of judgement is as far as we know only passed by humans. I always say, a world without humans wouldn't be better. It wouldn't be worse either. It would be nothing because no one's there to judge.

We've covered this discussion A LOT.

The most relevant study I can think of is probably the morality in babies experiment - show a newborn (well, as close as possible - can't walk or talk yet) a cartoon of two characters sharing and when they're offered a puppet, they'll want to make friends. Show a cartoon of one of the characters refusing to share and they will refuse to make friends with the corresponding puppet.

Human kids understand at least some examples of right and wrong straight out of the womb - and unless you want to argue that humanity is an entirely separate strain of evolution from the rest of the animal kingdom, this must also occur in animals.

Human babies are still humans.

Tbh, your whole post is pretty confused. Philosophy only seeks questions so it can try to answer them! That assumption sounds like something a bored schoolkid would say when presented with something daft like the "One Hand Clapping" or "Tree falling in the woods" problems that kids get told are "philosophical" by people who don't like philosophy.

I think it's pretty straight forward by saying that the process in philosophy is more important than the answers.

[magma]

If we put theology to one side (can be argued to be non-scientific), I don't think there's much difference between a philosophical investigation and a scientific one... they both adhere to the scientific method as described by ; they just take on different sorts of problems. The same way that Maths, Physics, Biology and Chemistry deal with different sorts of problems. They're all sciences.

Thats not really true. The scientific method requires measurable and empirical evidence, philosophy doesnt necessarily. The scientific method is only one method of crafting knowledge (a good one) but philosophy covers all of them.

...and logical thought surely constitutes empirical evidence? As long as you're not making leaps in logic (and therefore being a bad philosopher) you are adhering to the scientific method. They'll teach you that in your first philosophy lesson, too...

Nope thats not actually true. Logical thought is applied to empirical evidence in the scientific method but its is not empirical by itself.

Empirical evidence is aquired through observation and experimentation.

they also teach you about a priori and a posteriori in your first philosophy lesson

But the logical thought itself always comes from a place of empirical evidence - all philosophy does is join the dots.

eg.

Condition A is True [i.e. we have empirical evidence of something] -> Philosophical Thought/Logic -> Condition B Must Also Be True and Condition C Must Not Be True

A Priori and A Posteriori could happily apply to both science and philosophy. And Mathematics for that matter. There are plenty of "scientific" solutions that are just logical knock-ons of previous discoveries (Light Coming From a Galaxy is Red -> Doppler's Logical Thought -> Galaxy is moving away from us)... there are plenty of others that require experiments and new data to be produced. Those terms don't really say much about the difference between the two pursuits, unless I'm missing your point?

If a physical experiment is required, then it's not a suitable problem for philosophy, but it doesn't say anything about whether it's non-scientific or scientific. If the scientific method is being used, then it's scientific. That's a pretty easy piece of philosophy right there!

Pythagoras considered his theorem on right-angled triangles to be philosophical. And he coined the word...

[magma]

What exists in nature are behaviors that we would describe as empathic or altruistic or 'moral'. Morality is a matter of judgement and this type of judgement is as far as we know only passed by humans. I always say, a world without humans wouldn't be better. It wouldn't be worse either. It would be nothing because no one's there to judge.

We've covered this discussion A LOT.

The most relevant study I can think of is probably the morality in babies experiment - show a newborn (well, as close as possible - can't walk or talk yet) a cartoon of two characters sharing and when they're offered a puppet, they'll want to make friends. Show a cartoon of one of the characters refusing to share and they will refuse to make friends with the corresponding puppet.

Human kids understand at least some examples of right and wrong straight out of the womb - and unless you want to argue that humanity is an entirely separate strain of evolution from the rest of the animal kingdom, this must also occur in animals.

Human babies are still humans.

Read the bold bit again.

I think it's pretty straight forward by saying that the process in philosophy is more important than the answers.

The process in science is *everything* just as it is in philosophy. If you get an answer without using the correct method, it's not an answer! And you can't have an answer without defining a question. This is just... silly...

[scspkr99]

Because something can change, is it not biological? Not everyone's leg will break when kicked hard in the thigh, but it doesn't stop a broken leg being a biological phenomenon. Given that every thought you have (whether that's "Abortion is bad" or "Abortion is good") is created as a result of conditions within your brain then there is no thought you could have that isn't as a result of a natural process... sure, not every brain or opinion is identical, but neither is every rat, every eyeball or every person's taste in music - they're all still natural phenomena though, surely?

I entirely agree that morality can be explained in terms of natural phenomena but I think we have to be careful about the language and the science we use. I think for instance that psychology is constrained by biology but I think it remains a better tool in understanding things like ethics. In the same way that physics constrains chemistry constrains biology.

[magma]

I entirely agree that morality can be explained in terms of natural phenomena but I think we have to be careful about the language and the science we use. I think for instance that psychology is constrained by biology but I think it remains a better tool in understanding things like ethics. In the same way that physics constrains chemistry constrains biology.

Absolutely... approaching things with suitable language is the most important step in understanding them. Unless you can phrase a problem into a question, you can't answer it. (Thanks Douglas Adams...)

That's why I think it's kind of important to realise that philosophy underpins *all* of the sciences.

[scspkr99]

I agree with that though I wonder how long that lasts or what form it takes.

As an aside I've been reading a couple of books by Cosmologist Sean Carroll. The particle at the end of the universe is the hunt for the higgs and what it means / may mean. And from eternity to here about the flow of time and the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is a much more interesting read than I'm making it appear.

[magma]

I agree with that though I wonder how long that lasts or what form it takes.

As an aside I've been reading a couple of books by Cosmologist Sean Carroll. The particle at the end of the universe is the hunt for the higgs and what it means / may mean. And from eternity to here about the flow of time and the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is a much more interesting read than I'm making it appear.

I read The Particle At The End Of The Universe on my trip to the States a couple of months ago. Brilliant.

From Eternity To Here I've mentioned in the books thread once or twice... I think it's the only book that I've put down because it made my brain hurt. I've still never finished it.

Weirdly, recommended both of them to a mate yesterday!

[Genevieve]

Read the bold bit again.

Nah, it's irrelevant because you're making a logical leap that babies are bridging the gap between humans and other animals. It's not a "fully developed human", but then, neither is a 13 year old.

The process in science is *everything* just as it is in philosophy. If you get an answer without using the correct method, it's not an answer! And you can't have an answer without defining a question. This is just... silly...

Let's say some supernatural God came down from the heavens and gave us a machine that answers every scientific query we might have completely accurately, then we would get answers that follow the criteria we set for something to be scientific and get scientific answers.

If that same God gave us a 'philosophy machine' (to taunt us) and we'd insert a question and got an immediate answer... then no one's doing philosophy. The process between the question and answer would be entirely erased.

I like this Bertrand Russell quote because it explains what I mean:

"Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is also rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good"

[scspkr99]

I tend to skim the stuff I struggle with hoping that a second read clears up the stuff I don't get first time round and yeah from eternity to here is one of those. I'm still in it though so I can't confirm actually finishing it/

[magma]

Read the bold bit again.

Nah, it's irrelevant because you're making a logical leap that babies are bridging the gap between humans and other animals. It's not a "fully developed human", but then, neither is a 13 year old.

Ok, I'll do the legwork for you.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... thical-dog

Let's say some supernatural God came down from the heavens and gave us a machine that answers every scientific query we might have completely accurately, then we would get answers that follow the criteria we set for something to be scientific and get scientific answers.

Yes, the machine does the science for you.

If that same God gave us a 'philosophy machine' (to taunt us) and we'd insert a question and got an immediate answer... then no one's doing philosophy. The process between the question and answer would be entirely erased.

The machine's doing the philosophy for you. I don't see the difference?

I like this Bertrand Russell quote because it explains what I mean:

"Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is also rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good"

That doesn't say anything about whether it's a science or not. You could find plenty of examples of scientists who don't ever expect to find a definitive "answer" to their questions too. Try any cosmologist of the last 100 years... or a quantum theorist.... one of the fundamental truths we have to accept about quantum mechanics is that there are some things even nature doesn't have an "answer" to.

[magma]

I tend to skim the stuff I struggle with hoping that a second read clears up the stuff I don't get first time round and yeah from eternity to here is one of those. I'm still in it though so I can't confirm actually finishing it/

I shot myself in the foot with it tbh. I got so frustrated on a single page that I slammed it down on my garden table and stormed inside... by the time I'd remembered it was out there the heavens had opened and it was ruined.

I've never plucked up the guts to re-buy it only to have it confirm what I feared all along. I'm just not clever enough for time...

[scspkr99]

Yeah I've thrown a couple of books aside before only to regret not having the opportunity to revisit. I'm about 40% in according to the kindle so I may not have gotten to my slam it down moment yet. It's an ebook though so I'll be specially careful to not let it get wet.

[kay]

Philosophy = How to think about stuff, thinking up stuff to think of, and coming up with ideas about how things work

Science = Measuring/studying stuff to work out how it works, and putting it into a framework that will allow you to apply it elsewhere

Science = Applied Philosophy

Morality = Human construct/framework placed on top of DNA programming (both natural genetics and epigenetic modifications)

Modern notions of morality = Base morality modified by millenia of cultural norms

Thinking about morality = Philosophy

Working out the basis for morality = Science

[scspkr99]

I'd hazard a guess you're a scientist.

I agree with some of that but I think it misses some crucial elements. I have a question though, it seems in some areas of science, mainly cosmology and physics we're approaching a point where we are unable to derive predictions from scientific theories. If we acknowledge Kuhn's perspective that scientific revolutions require (or are) a paradigm shift what changes are we going to have to make to accept scientific theories that aren't falsifiable?

Sorry if the questions a bit convoluted I'm not sure how to clarify it.

[kay]

Humanity has reached the point where we are unable to derive predictions from existing scientific theories many times. Newton's Theory of Gravity, Einstein's Relativity, Walter & Crick's Discovery of DNA all resulted in paradigm shifts. Jung's theory on human psychology changed how we approached human behaviour, and is in the process of being supplanted by newer theories.

It would be a dark day when humanity decides that it is acceptable to no longer strive towards scientific theories that aren't falsifiable. That's basically what religion is.