Philosophy is redundant

[eFestivals]

Telecommunications ...

Well, cos it's solid state stuff nowadays I guess from one angle it doesn't strictly fit 'mechanical' - but ultimately the solid state stuff is only a replacement for what was mechanical, and it can be reasonably thought of in the same way.

After all, a person thinks of a solid state switch in exactly the same way as they do a mechanical switch - it does exactly the same thing.

[dakyras]

You're getting confused with what engine has come to commonly mean, and not what it did mean.

But anyway, a bridge is not static from all angles. It is, after all, a device for moving things over a chasm - which is ultimately no different to (say) a war-engine being a device to move something (a boulder, or troops, whatever) over the wall of a castle.

Edited October 6, 2010 by dakyras

[eFestivals]

Hmm, debatable. I'm more ATM than PCM, so you'll have an even harder time convincing me there ...

remember, I did say 'traditional'.

On a completely separate note ... I'm usually blocked during the day but today I remembered seeing your thread on T-day and I have been using http://dionysus.efestivals.co.uk/ - Is this URL here to stay?

erm ... thanks for the reminder. It's just disappeared, sorry.

[eFestivals]

I'm willing to admit that a bridge is technically a mechanical device, in that it operates within the spectrum of mechanical physics.

But you can't say it's no different to a trebuchet or a catapult. The latter applies force to the boulder. The car is moving under its own force. Unless there's some sort of bridge that has a conveyor-belt...

And a bridge applies force to anything that is crossing it - an upwards force that stops you ending up in the drink!

So it really isn't any different, outside of the movement of the device itself (which is applying an *extra* force to the boulder it was already supporting).

There's nothing within the definition of engine which says there has to be movement of the mechanical device - just that it's a mechanical device. But I do concede that it's most normally applied to mechanical devices with movement.

[dakyras]

And a bridge applies force to anything that is crossing it - an upwards force that stops you ending up in the drink!

So it really isn't any different, outside of the movement of the device itself (which is applying an *extra* force to the boulder it was already supporting).

There's nothing within the definition of engine which says there has to be movement of the mechanical device - just that it's a mechanical device. But I do concede that it's most normally applied to mechanical devices with movement.

[eFestivals]

But the force it applies isn't motion. They're completely different.

Yep. But as I said, there's nothing within the definition of 'engine' which says there has to be motion.

[worm]

corrected for you.

[worm]

But do they tho? Really?

Edited October 6, 2010 by worm

[llcoolphil]

There was a story last week that Scientists had found a genetic cause for ADHD

http://health.iafrica.com/healthy_kids/677194.html

(There are plenty of other links, this was the first I came to)

Closer scrutiny reveals they've actually done no such thing but have spun results from one test in a way that has a very positive advantage for the bigpharma that was involved in them - a genetic cause means a pharma response.

Does this make science more or less an act of faith?

[eFestivals]

All schools of knowledge are based upon thinking you see.

Corrected for you.

[dakyras]

Isn't that what philosophy is? The critical study of problems based on rational thought = thinking.

I'm fairly certain philosophy means 'love of wisom', and it doesn't have to mean what normal people associate philosophy with. People who do PhDs in literature apply aesthetic philosophy to their study, which is, according to wikipedia, "critical reflection on art, culture and nature".

Edited October 6, 2010 by dakyras

[worm]

Isn't that what philosophy is? The critical study of problems based on rational thought = thinking.

[dakyras]

But do they tho? Really?

It occurted to me last night that I have six friends who are "doctors of philosophy". Not one of them has every studied philosophy, not one of them has much of a clue of what philosophy is. They simply know their own subject areas - which aren't philosophy.

So what they really are is not "doctors of philosophy", but in fact "doctors of investigation".

The fact that they've become "doctors of philosophy" without need of any direct reference to philosophy is by itself an indication of philosophy's redundancy, the fact that it's been surpassed by more specialist knowledge.

Edited October 6, 2010 by dakyras

[worm]

Corrected for you.

[worm]

Does this make science more or less an act of faith?

Edited October 7, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

It is a critical reflection using reasoned thought.

Then please do tell me again what it is that you feel Hawkings has got wrong.

[pinback]

Then please do tell me again what it is that you feel Hawkings has got wrong.

[llcoolphil]

I don't think that particular example does, but I would agree that science has become a synonymous with faith on a religious level.

It just shows that people don't care about who is leading just as long as they're being led.

[worm]

I know several philosophers who are currently at risk of losing their jobs because they're running at such a deficit in their department. I think the shift in the way Universities are looking at their own philosophy departments says something about the value of philosophy both in terms of £££ and societal value.

[worm]

Then please do tell me again what it is that you feel Hawkings has got wrong.

[worm]

It was more to ask that as there is a huge amount of bad science out there, how do we know which is the good and which is the bad? The tools required to examine what is being presented to us are beyond most of us - in the example I gave, there are few people with sufficient knowledge of genetics or the scientific method to be able to argue with the findings and are reliant on someone doing that for us. So Im left in a position of believing either 'this' interpretation or 'that' one without the tools to examine either fully. I have no doubt that the people doing the research are as compelled by their findings as the people who disagree are compelled by their own. So isn't it just an act of faith (with only elementary reasoning) which one I go with?

[feral chile]

Nope, I'm referring to 'engines' - which literally is any machine designed to do a task.

So engineers are always dealing with 'engines' of some kind.

From Dictionary.com:-

Number 4 nails it.

[feral chile]

There was a story last week that Scientists had found a genetic cause for ADHD

http://health.iafrica.com/healthy_kids/677194.html

(There are plenty of other links, this was the first I came to)

Closer scrutiny reveals they've actually done no such thing but have spun results from one test in a way that has a very positive advantage for the bigpharma that was involved in them - a genetic cause means a pharma response.

Does this make science more or less an act of faith?

[feral chile]

Anyway, since we're defining things...

phi·los·o·phy (fĭ-lŏsˈə-fē)

noun pl. philosophies phi·los·o·phies

Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Origin: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek philosophiā, from philosophos, lover of wisdom, philosopher; see philosopher .

Edited October 6, 2010 by feral chile

[llcoolphil]

Then please do tell me again what it is that you feel Hawkings has got wrong.