Fight Semi-Scientists: Embrace Inexactness for Exact Thinking

[hypnagogue]

RetiredMD, thanks for your concern. You may be right that more immediate moderator action was warranted here. If anything, I felt that letting the conversation take its course was productive.

The kind of anti-philosophy sentiment expressed in this thread seems to be somewhat common attitude among 'hard-nosed' scientist types, and as this is first and foremost a science site, I imagine there are a number of such people here. So perhaps it is of more value to let them air out their views against philosophy and then make the case for philosophy, or even in some instances point out where their conceptions are outright false, than to squash the argument before it begins. I readily acknowledge that some of marlon's ideas about philosophy are not just disparaging but outright false. However, I think that they may be common misconceptions about philosophy, especially at a site such as this. If that is the case, then Les and cogito have done a great service to battle against such ignorance of the discipline, a service which could not have been fully realized had the conversation been immediately halted. That said, I fully recognize your concerns here and fully accept the brunt of any criticisms you might have.

I apologize if it appears as if I've left Les or anyone else out to dry. I agree with you that Les is a valuable member of PF, and that our community is better off for having him. While none of the recent posters in this thread are entirely without fault in terms of how they have conducted themselves, I don't mean to give the impression that they are all equally to blame either (although I can see how it might appear that way). Les's last post in this thread has been deleted in an effort to remove any trace of marlon's unacceptable ad hominem attack more than anything else. Suffice it to say that appropriate action has been taken behind the scenes.

 

[marlon]

Les's last post in this thread has been deleted in an effort to remove any trace of marlon's unacceptable ad hominem attack more than anything else. Suffice it to say that appropriate action has been taken behind the scenes.

mmmm

Suffice it to say that this is a very philosophical statement...

marlon

 

[Les Sleeth]

I believe he is the best natural philosopher there . . . .

Thank you for your kind and supportive words, I'll try to get back to my old self! At first I thought when you described me as a "natural philosopoher" that those familar with naturalism might not agree. But after thinking about it I realized that I really do believe everything has come about throught natural principles, and that would include a creator if there is one. I think where I'd vary from most naturalists is that I don't believe all natural principles that exist are necessarily embodied in physics. Hey you might have given me an idea for a new thread, so thanks for that too!

 

[Les Sleeth]

While none of the recent posters in this thread are entirely without fault in terms of how they have conducted themselves, I don't mean to give the impression that they are all equally to blame either (although I can see how it might appear that way). Les's last post in this thread has been deleted . . .

I do regret my over the top and inappropriate anger at Zapper, and that I prepared that last bit of dripping sarcasm for Marlon you deleted. Now everyone knows I sometimes do take things personally, which is a trait I have been trying to eliminate from my psychology. As RetiredMD hinted, I did feel like I was under personal attack, but I should have handled it better. Now I wish I'd had only been mildly sarcastic (at most! ).

 

[quantumdude]

Why philosophy?

While philosophical views and methods may vary widely, most of what is regarded as professional or academic philosophy makes careful, rigorous use of logic, and this is where its credibility comes from, at least to me. The "exactness" of philosophy resides in the standards imposed by logic.

Humans have a desire to pose questions whose answers are not accessible to scientific inquiry. This will always be the case, and pretending that the questions do not exist is not a realistic option. Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly. Those people who have dedicated themselves to addressing such questions well are philosophers.

Just take a look at a few articles which come from reputable sources in philosophy. Note the insistence on valid logic in each case.

Actualism
Category Theory
Bayesian Epistemology
Logic and Ontology

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Humans have a desire to pose questions whose answers are not accessible to scientific inquiry.

Check.

This will always be the case, and pretending that the questions do not exist is not a realistic option.

Check.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly.

How?

(snip)

Just take a look at a few articles which come from reputable sources in philosophy. Note the insistence on valid logic in each case.

Actualism

" -- everything that can be said to exist in any sense -- is actual. Put another way, actualism denies that there is any kind of being beyond actuality; to be is to be actual. Actualism therefore stands in stark contrast to possibilism, which, as we've seen, takes the things there are to include possible but non-actual objects. " :zzz: Uhh --- not "check."

Category Theory

Check.
Bayesian Epistemology

Check.
Logic and Ontology

Check.

Physics: the standards of "quality" are consistency with conservation principles, GR to Newtonian mechanics, thermo, QM. Philosophy: the standards of quality are consistency with principles of logic, and what else? Seriously, how much effort is the clarification of "actualism" vs. "possibilism" worth?

 

[quantumdude]

Tom: Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly.

Bystander: How?

By insisting on well-defined terms, valid logic where applicable, and experiential confirmation where applicable.

" -- everything that can be said to exist in any sense -- is actual. Put another way, actualism denies that there is any kind of being beyond actuality; to be is to be actual. Actualism therefore stands in stark contrast to possibilism, which, as we've seen, takes the things there are to include possible but non-actual objects. " :zzz: Uhh --- not "check."

My post asked the reader to note the insistence on good logic, and to accept that good logic is a measure of the "exactness" of philosophy.

Determining whether the subject matter is deemed important or interesting is outside the scope of what I asked.

Philosophy: the standards of quality are consistency with principles of logic, and what else?

Philosophy is not pure logic of course. All philosophical schools of thought actually take a position on certain matters, which means that premises have to be explicitly given. These premises are evaluated according to how well-defined their logical and non-logical vocabularies are, and whether they are consistent with what we observe. The proceeding inferences are evaluated according to the rules of logic.

Seriously, how much effort is the clarification of "actualism" vs. "possibilism" worth?

It's worth however much effort you are willing to spend on it. As for me, it's not of much interest. I selected the article because it makes explicit use of symbolic modal logic.

Incidentally, my favorite topics in philosophy are formal logic and the metaphysics of space and time, so I concentrate on those.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Incidentally, my favorite topics in philosophy are formal logic and the metaphysics of space and time, so I concentrate on those.

It would be interesting to hear some of your thoughts on the metaphysics of space and time. They are also very interesting to me. Any chance of you starting a thread to explore that?

 

[Moonbear]

I've only skimmed much of this thread, but I get the impression that many here don't appreciate why philosophy is included as a part of a science forum site. As Les has been pointing out, logical argument is one of the hallmarks of philosophy. Although there are a lot of nuts attracted to philosophy, just as there are nuts attracted to science, they are not representative of the field of study. Indeed, all fields of science are branches of philosophy, and the origin of scientific method can be credited to philosophy. The highest degree offered for a scientist is the Ph.D., or Doctor of Philosophy.

When there are facts available for an argument, they must be used, and philosophers are aware of this. However, as much of those fields of philosophy have branched off into the other sciences, philosophers continue to seek explanations for those things that do not come with easy to observe, factual data. Their theories then can either be studied in more detail, as tools become available, by one of the existing sciences, or perhaps will form the basis of a new field of scientific inquiry. There's no way to predict this.

If you read the works of real philosophers, the rigor for logical arguments is even stronger than in some of the other sciences; they leave no room for skipping a step or making an assumption without explicitely stating it as an assumption.

While I know philosophy professors who truly hate teaching the course, because they think it's boring, I loved my course in formal logic. It was quite an eye-opener and while it was a bit bizarre to learn the symbols, it has turned out quite useful to hone my writing skills and improve my ability to present a convincing argument to other scientists, as well as to present an easily understood explanation of topics to my students.

 

[Nereid]

I've not had the time to read all this lately, but just to add a small comment to Moonbear's excellent post: just as in science, so too in philosophy there are terms which have narrow and precise meanings (well known to those active in the field). Sometimes, too, some terms look like ordinary (English) words, just as in physics or other sciences (think of 'work', or 'energy'). This can lead the unwary reader to read a solid piece of good philosophy and conclude that it's just waffle (OK, some bits of philosophy come across as waffle even after you understand the terms!); but that's the case in some areas of science too, esp where the mathematical (model) bases haven't yet been well established (fewer good examples today than, say, 50 years ago).

 

[metacristi]

I myself feel sometimes (much more stronger feeling in the past) that philosophers just waste our time in their quest to find justification for virtually everything.Something which,of course,scientists never do since we observe that we can proceed from a certain point on with some axioms,empirical observations and a methodology (having both logical and empirical aspects;settling also the situation of unobservables in science) from which to build a harmonious,internally coherent and simple,system providing us the so called 'objective' knowledge.

To use one of Popper's examples,when trying to determine the speed of a sand dune a scientist will never waste time by trying to answer questions like 'how many grains of sand are there?' or 'what really is a grain of sand?' how philosophers tend to do.Science does not need to answer all questions in order to deal with observable effects,to find conjectures 'working' for all our practical purposes at a certain moment at least.More or less pure pragmatism,in other words.But this in no way amount to say that they (philosophers) are wrong.I thought myself after graduating from university,deh 'scientistic' indoctrination is a reality,that we have reasons beyond all reasonable doubt to grant to science an absolute (forever) epistemological privilege.But after reading some philosophy (only after a graduation unfortunately,no link to Internet during my universitary years) I realized that my belief is unjustified.

Now I really wonder why have I considered once,not so many years ago by the way,philosophy as being without any value...Still this does not mean that pure relativsm or feyerabendism (with the claim that science has no epistemological privilege) are the only rational paths remaining.For we still have more logical reasons,nonwithstanding that empiricism alone might not be enough,to grant an epistemological privilege,openly accepted as fallible however,at least to a minimal scientific method.

Thus the real problem I see is not that science has its roots in philosophy,it's clear that those who think that science is a sort of enclave and lead us always to the 'right way' are wrong.The problem is not even that philosophical ideas could not be of help for science itself,for example I do not think that a certain variant of dualism is impossible to become the first choice programm,it's still perfectly possible that sometime it will have epistemological privilege.

The problem is that some philosophers (philosophy of mind is a very good example) think that they have solved some 'puzzles',problems (of mind for example) once and forever NOW,already claiming epistemological privilege if no certitudes,for their view.Or this is inacceptable,their theoretical arguments are,still,not sound.Finally,as I've already argued in this thread,it is unrealistic to downgrade science at the level of an elaborated mith,as so many like to believe.Science has,still,epistemological privilege,nonwithstanding that only a fallible one,the necessity to reman,basically,open to all possibilities in no way subminate this,we merely have more 'pro' reasons (purely logical ones included).

As of now at least science and a (minimal) minimal scientific method is our best 'tool' to make sense of the observed facts.Sure not even the scientific method is 'set in stone',it should be able to 'evolve',the problem is that for a change to take place we need very,very,good reasons.Not the case now,this is why I think the approach of some in the philosophy of mind for example is wrong (though maybe in absolute they are right).The reality is that the actual emergentist conjecture of mind is still theoretically and empirically evolving and basically there is no good reason to change the method now (this in no way amounts to a claim that this will be forever the case as,unfortunately,enough many hardcore supporters of scientism like to believe).

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

I don't know why do people like certainty so much? Can we even accept for once that the thing facilitating discourse is uncertainty, and that uncertainty is a fact not only in science, but in life.

Why should philosophy arrive at definite answers to things? to me, philosophy is nothing more than a religion, I give you what a palette of theories, you go believe what you want, and argue on th validity of each. To me, saying that philosophy is inherently uncertain and thus it is a "sub" science, is like saying that just because sushi is raw, it is only fit for consumption by dogs.

Ongoing discourse is necessary so as to provide interpretations to new changes resulting from the evolution in both culture, society and even the physical sciences. Thus, you cannot expect philosophy to close its books,say ok, that's done, we have arrived at something definite, discussion's over.

I like to see philosophy as a more logical counterpart of religion. And perhaps to a theist, you would be able to understand if I related philosphy to religion.