Philosophy is redundant

[eFestivals]

Aren't Philosophy and Science just different sides of the same coin?

Not really, not in the modern world.

One is based solely on ideas. If the idea can be made to hang together then it becomes true.

One is based on ideas AND PROOF. Replication, demonstration, etc. It's much more than what might simply turn out to be an idea, but a wrong idea.

Philosophy says that religion can't be dismissed. Science says there's no such thing, because there's no repeatable evidence for it - it's an idea with no substance behind it; science deals with what is known to be, not what can't be known.

[llcoolphil]

One is based solely on ideas. If the idea can be made to hang together then it becomes true.

One is based on ideas AND PROOF. Replication, demonstration, etc. It's much more than what might simply turn out to be an idea, but a wrong idea.

[jonbob]

Philosophy surely can't be redundant if we accept that our current scientifc understanding is exactly that - our current understanding.

[eFestivals]

Based on these definitions, science and philosophy are exactly the same thing.

Only to the stupid.

One gives validation to the unknown.

The other says if it's unknown, it can't be validated.

[eFestivals]

it must be weird being you.. so sure of everything

philosphize:

to speculate in a philosophical manner

it doesn't have to be black and/or white

bit like most things in life really

.... it's actually the philosophers who claim the certainty. I'm just turning it back on them.

They'll claim that until philosophy was recognised and labeled, it didn't exist. Yet the very idea of philosophy is a philosophical idea; it required philosophy to come into existence.

So ... If you want to accept that everything is derived from philosophy then you'd also have to accept that philosophy is derived from other earlier things no less valid than philosophy, and so any claim of everything being derived from philosophy has countless other claims alongside it of no less validity - so what I said is indisputable fact both to me and (if they're able to take their head from their arse for a moment) those philosophers.

It's thru the sort of idiotic bollox whereby philosophy is saying that philosophy couldn't have come to exist in the first place that philosophy is shown as the empty and worthless bollox that it is.

Edited September 8, 2010 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

Since science already takes this into account this can't be used as an argument against the redundancy of philosophy.

[llcoolphil]

Only to the stupid.

One gives validation to the unknown.

The other says if it's unknown, it can't be validated.

[eFestivals]

Validate gravity and mass for me then.

I drop a rock on your toe. You scream. Gravity validated.

I throw the rock at your head. You scream. Mass validated.

Those are real and indisputable things, for which those labels have ultimately come into existence as a way of explaining those things.

If* there's nothing provable behind the ideas that are said to be gravity and mass, it doesn't much matter. Alongside the ideas of why those things are as they are (which you say are just unproven and unprovable ideas), there is a *REAL* and *MEASURABLE* effect.

(* I'm not sure you're actually correct. Not going to argue it tho, cos it doesn't matter for what's been said here)

The same "real and measurable" does not apply to all of philosophy. Just having an idea - without knowing if it's true - that a rock will fall is a philosophy.

[eFestivals]

every single philosopher..??

those that subscribe to the formal defined idea of it, yup.

go on, admit it, you miss him....

Yep, and I miss being buggered by the vicar too.

PS: but I'm half hoping he might come and join in this convo. I'll wet myself when he states Hawkings is wrong, and that he knows more about it than Hawkings.

Edited September 8, 2010 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

I drop a rock on your toe. You scream. Gravity validated.

I throw the rock at your head. You scream. Mass validated.

Those are real and indisputable things, for which those labels have ultimately come into existence as a way of explaining those things.

If* there's nothing provable behind the ideas that are said to be gravity and mass, it doesn't much matter. Alongside the ideas of why those things are as they are (which you say are just unproven and unprovable ideas), there is a *REAL* and *MEASURABLE* effect.

(* I'm not sure you're actually correct. Not going to argue it tho, cos it doesn't matter for what's been said here)

The same "real and measurable" does not apply to all of philosophy. Just having an idea - without knowing if it's true - that a rock will fall is a philosophy.

[eFestivals]

They are unproveable with our current understanding,

The theory is unprovable perhaps, but the effect isn't.

Philosophy is merely ideas - effect isn't ever a part of it.

They are not the same. Everything is not equal.

[eFestivals]

Show me that it's true that if I drop a rock it will fall. I'll accept that every other time a rock has been dropped it has fallen but that is not the same as saying it will always happen.

You're philosophising. You're not doing science.

The fact that it's always been observed to fall is enough to scientifically say "it will always fall". Until there's something to *properly* suggest (outside of empty philosophising) that it might not fall, the scientific conclusion is that it will *always* fall.

As your words there demonstrate, the philosophical conclusion is that it might not always fall, despite there being no evidence to back that up.

(I'm working what I say here on everything being equal in all experiments, just to be clear)

So, as I said, the scientific works on what is known, while philosophy doesn't - it works on "what might be", not "what is".

[Pogues Mcgogues]

PS: but I'm half hoping he might come and join in this convo. I'll wet myself when he states Hawkings is wrong, and that he knows more about it than Hawkings.

[rabid]

The fact that it's always been observed to fall is enough to scientifically say "it will always fall". Until there's something to *properly* suggest (outside of empty philosophising) that it might not fall, the scientific conclusion is that it will *always* fall.

[Purple Monkey]

Philosophy is science. Science is philosophy. Just like how religion often imitates or precedes science and how science can in many ways go hand in hand with religion. They all fall under the umbrella of interpretting reality as we see it. Religion, philosophy and science are all beliefs, all interpretations, so say one ir the other is more relevant to us as a species is extremely narrow-minded. People seem to focus on what makes them different and which one is superior, but THAT is what is irrelevant.

There's no point in explaining the concept of philosophy to those who have already arrogantly made their mind up about everything, either.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Purple Monkey

[Purple Monkey]

Isn't this entire argument over what he allegedly said or meant to say? Speculation of intent isn't proof of anything.

[llcoolphil]

You're philosophising. You're not doing science.

The fact that it's always been observed to fall is enough to scientifically say "it will always fall". Until there's something to *properly* suggest (outside of empty philosophising) that it might not fall, the scientific conclusion is that it will *always* fall.

As your words there demonstrate, the philosophical conclusion is that it might not always fall, despite there being no evidence to back that up.

(I'm working what I say here on everything being equal in all experiments, just to be clear)

So, as I said, the scientific works on what is known, while philosophy doesn't - it works on "what might be", not "what is".

Edited September 8, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

Isn't this entire argument over what he allegedly said or meant to say? Speculation of intent isn't proof of anything.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

How can there be no anything before the big bang? Surely there was something?

[llcoolphil]

So, as I said, the scientific works on what is known, while philosophy doesn't - it works on "what might be", not "what is".

Edited September 8, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

How can there be no anything before the big bang? Surely there was something?

[Ed209]

How can there be no anything before the big bang? Surely there was something?

Edited September 8, 2010 by Ed209

[llcoolphil]

I'll wet myself when he states Hawkings is wrong

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I realy don't get it. I understand what you're saying, and probably agree with the above, cause it's impossible to get your head around nothing. How did the bang happen then do they think?

[llcoolphil]

Not if time itself started at the big bang.

The problem is the human mind can't grasp nothingness. Its impossible as whenever we think of it we always think of something, even we think of something dark and empty that's still something, and not nothing.

Edited September 8, 2010 by llcoolphil