A place of philosophy among other disciplines.

  • Thread starter Alexander
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Philosophy
Originally posted by wuliheronIn summary, a philosopher, a physicist, and a mathematician ride a train and see a black sheep in a field. They each offer their perspective on the color of all sheep. Later, a physicist and mathematician come across a treasure chest and the philosopher provides a thought experiment on reaching it. The scientist tests the mathematician's theory and proves it to be true. The moral is to support scientists, trust mathematicians, and educate philosophers on the importance of evidence-based claims.
  • #36
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And being logical is a reason to accept it because...


1. Because of its self-scrutinizing nature.

2. Because not only is it self-scrutinizing, but it's a universally acceptable form to communicate in. Thus a scrutinization can be translated so all can adjust.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Because of its self-scrutinizing nature.

2. Because not only is it self-scrutinizing, but it's a universally acceptable form to communicate in. Thus a scrutinization can be translated so all can adjust.

NO! I refuse to adjust! Life is more than just logic, or a great deal of strife would not exist. Without context, logic is meaningless.
 
  • #38
Greetings !
Originally posted by Hurkyl
From the context of a scientific approach to knowledge, the reason philosophy still exists is because it challenges premises. Premises should be challenged at every tier of knowledge. There is no reason to believe there is a magic cutoff below which the current state of knowledge should be taken as perfect, complete, and infallible, and only knowledge above the cutoff is subject to inquiry.
Very well put. But, to no awail apparently, just
like my numerous posts expressing the same ideas.
Originally posted by Alexander
It is not a philosophy which questions premises and conclusions, it is a science. Scientists are constantly testing Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Shroedinger, fundamental constants, fundamental symmetries, etc - in wider and wider areas and with finer and finer measurements.
Sure they question them, using mostly the SAME tools...:wink:
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
2. Because not only is it self-scrutinizing, but
it's a universally acceptable form to communicate
in. Thus a scrutinization can be translated so all
can adjust.
Please, fomalize and write down the rules
of this Universal logic. (So that I could study them
and see weather they match my Universal logic. :wink:)
Thanks.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #39
Hurkyl, I applaud you unceasingly, on making the point I would have made, but doing so in a superlative manner. Kudos.
 
Back
Top