Philosophy

[unanun]

@Drakel I am uncomfortable with overclassifying philosophy. The paper I linked set clear boundaries for it. If you claim that all rational thought is philosophical thought, the definition itself precludes any sort of argument or debate.

 

[Jorick]

Hang hang hang on.

I am saying that I already know what you're trying to tell me. That is not an appeal to authority.

I am saying that you are lost in the details by trying to tell me that science never proves something 100% true. It is something that someone without an appreciation for the active practice of science holds. Perhaps I came off terse and offensive. I ask that you try not to get angry at what I said, and read this again:

That paragraph you've quoted shows two failures of logic which make continuing this to be, as I previously stated, pointless.

"Your fixation on asserting to me over and over that science can never prove anything true shows, I think, that you are not actively practicing science." Translation: you do not actively practice science so your opinion on the matter is of less worth and/or wrong simply because you do not actively practice science. This is what I meant by it being an appeal to authority or accomplishment. It is saying, indirectly, that your opinions on the matter are superior to mine because you are some kind of authority on the subject or because you have accomplished more in this field than I have.

"Again, I believe you. But..." Translation: what you're saying is correct, but you're wrong. This is what I meant by the lack of internal consistency I brought up previously. Which is it? Am I right about science not giving unequivocal truths, or does science give unequivocal truths? Pick one and stick with it. I already said that it would be foolish to operate under the assumption that scientific findings are wrong because of that shred of doubt, so you bringing up as some kind of support for your argument means you either did not read or did not understand my post.

The whole point of science not proving anything 100% true was to counter your idea of "truth" being required in measuring progress, because even science does not give it in an absolute sense. I've stated the argument multiple times and you've ignored it without rebutting it multiple times. What is the point in me continuing this conversation when you simply ignore salient points? I see none, therefore unless you actually respond to those things instead of cherry picking quotes out of my posts to respond to as if they were the entire thing, I think this'll be my last reply to you in this thread.

 

[unanun]

I am sorry you got that impression and I am sorry for coming off that way. What I am trying to get across to you is that sometimes you need to practice something more to understand the finer nuances. Like I said, at some point it is better for your health to assume that there is no teacup. You acknowledge it is there and pay lip service, but it is all but nonexistent. It is the rational point of view to take because the evidence is overwhelming.

The question is, what are you trying to prove? I agree with you that there are technically no absolute truths in the matter. But how does this bolster your argument that philosophy makes progress? Proving that science technically makes no progress because it never refines our understanding is a bit disingenuous - it is hiding within the realm of irrational uncertainty.

 

[Jorick]

As I already said (again with the ignoring things), the point was to show your definition of progress either discounted science as having progress or also had to acknowledge progress in philosophy, therefore rebutting your argument that science progresses while philosophy does not because "objective truths" supposedly measure progress.

Also, your new definitions are just the same thing you've been saying the whole time: "hey, let's judge philosophy by the same standards as science despite the fact that they operate in different ways!" This is what I've been arguing with you about the whole time. Trying to apply the same standards of progress/advancement/improvement/betterment/whatever to two different fields of study is foolish. Apply the standards of mathematics (a closed system which operates on proofs with only a binary "it is valid or it is not valid" with no shades of grey) to science and science makes no progress (because it does not produce proofs due to not being a closed system of binaries). You're doing the same thing with science and philosophy and it's equally foolish.

You've been moving the goal posts and redefining terms with wanton abandon while ignoring inconvenient counter points the whole time. It's just a load of frustrating circular nonsense. No hard feelings, no judgment on you as a person, but I'm done with you as far as this thread is concerned.

 

[unanun]

So ... let me try again ... and I will attempt to clear up both sides of our discussion.

My stipulation is that philosophy is completely incapable of falsifying points of view. Then, I claim philosophy makes no progress. I seem to take the definition of 'progress' as a reduction of viewpoints, thus eventually leading to the one true viewpoint, while you argue that it is basically the generation of more. We debased into a pointless discussion about progress.

Why can you not come up with any concrete refutation that philosophy is incapable of falsifying points of view? Your supposed way of rebutting that science makes no progress is to point out that there is the probability, arbitrarily close to zero, of things contrary to established theory happening because science can never be 100% true, and thus can never truly falsify or eliminate a point of view. This is where we circle back and I have to say that you are not a practicing scientist, so you don't understand exactly what it means to claim that theory is never true. If you made this claim to any practicing scientist they would not take you seriously. Then you claim I am making an argument from authority. Sigh.

Arguing that a theory cannot be true because we can never completely prove it is silly. To make a claim like that, you must produce a contradictory hypothesis and attempt to falsify it, because there are an infinite amount of alternate scenarios where established theory is wrong. To invalidate it you have to produce contradictory evidence that is in line with your own hypothesis.

"Unanun, is the sun going to rise tomorrow?"
"Yes."
"100% Yes?"
"...yes."
"But you can't be sure."
"You are right."
"So there is a chance the sun could not rise tomorrow."
"..."

To live your life within the 0.0...1% uncertainty is irrational.

"Unanun, is evolution true?"
"Overwhelmingly so."
"But you can't prove it to be true. For example, a prime mover could have done all of this in a clever way. Or perhaps our entire world is a simulation following a preprogrammed path. Or ..."
"All of those things are possible."
"So how can you say evolution is true?"

To *shudder* quote wikipedia:

Naïve falsification considers scientific statements individually. Scientific theories are formed from groups of these sorts of statements, and it is these groups that must be accepted or rejected by scientists. Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it.

At each stage, experimental observation made a theory untenable (i.e., falsified it) and a new theory was found that had greater explanatory power (i.e., could account for the previously unexplained phenomena), and as a result, provided greater opportunity for its own falsification.

Because philosophy can never produce, for example, a falsifiable point of view about morals or ethics or human life, philosophy never helps anything. Where were the philosophers at every state-sanctioned massacre in human history? About half of them were agreeing with it, and the other half were against it. Philosophy has never produced something all humans can agree on that can lead to betterment (or whatever positive word you think of). All it does is spin around forever in a riot of contradictory view points. Philosophers are free to pontificate as much as they want, as they have been doing so for millenia. That doesn't change the fact that they will never be a guiding or prophetic force.

 

[Holmishire]

The question is, what are you trying to prove?

That there is progress in philosophy.

I agree with you that there are technically no absolute truths in the matter.

That is good.

But how does this bolster your argument that philosophy makes progress?

This particular argument was to prove that science makes no progress. It may seem to be counterproductive, but the original purpose was to show you how your ways of defining philosophy's lack of progress also worked against science, ultimately.

Because I agree that science instills progress, I felt it necessary to explain how such definitions/stances/whatever did not help your stance.

it is hiding within the realm of irrational uncertainty.

I never hid behind the uncertainty. Rather, I embraced it quite openly, and I can safely say Jorick did too.

---

I feel like you are close enough to understanding our viewpoints that any further debate will lead nowhere. I do still believe there is a blatant error in your reasoning, an internal inconsistency, as Jorick has noted. Specifically, this is where you use quantitative measurements for science, but refuse to address quantitative measurements for philosophy.

This—

The number of allowed viewpoints gradually decreases through observation and experiment.

—is pretty much the best I could hope for, but was discredited by the next statement. All philosophy fits into this category, though I would replace observation and experiment with rational thought. Philosophy also does not converge upon a single truth, but rather, a plethora of irrefutable barriers.

---

Never mind, read your new post, you jumped back.

Philosophy has never produced something all humans can agree on that can lead to betterment (or whatever positive word you think of).

I have shown the same for science. There is nothing everyone agrees is better.

If you made this claim to any practicing scientist they would not take you seriously.

You assume you can represent all practicing scientists. I'm sure there is a scientist out there who understands skepticism.

To live your life within the 0.0...1% uncertainty is irrational.

I am not proposing you live your life like that. I am proposing you acknowledge the existence of this ultimate uncertainty. Just because it isn't practical to live like nothing is true, doesn't mean that things are true. All we do is assume things will continue as expected, because life is easier that way.

philosophy can never produce, for example, a falsifiable point of view about morals or ethics or human life,

Oh, we can.

Assuming the group is more valuable than the individual, sacrificing hostages to terrorists is a good idea.

Similarly, assuming no external forces act upon an inertial object, it will remain in inertia.

All "truths", be they philosophical or scientific, are dependent upon assumptions of context. Just because science chooses to summarize all their assumptions as "assuming the physical world stays consistent" and philosophy attempts to consider assumption-less contexts, doesn't mean these crucial assumptions cease to exist.

 

[unanun]

Philosophy also does not converge upon a single truth, but rather, a plethora of irrefutable barriers.

Irrefutable what? Examples?

I never hid behind the uncertainty. Rather, I embraced it quite openly, and I can safely say Jorick did too.

Nitpicking o_o. You are using an incomplete understanding of 'scientific truth' to bolster your argument.

You assume you can represent all practicing scientists. I'm sure there is a scientist out there who understands skepticism.

The definition of skepticism is .. *checks* oh boy .. a view point that precludes all discussion. I am a skeptic, I question new results. But it is within rationality to accept evolution and other basic scientific theories as true. Nothing has come along that is any better, nor has there been any new evidence that will falsify evolution. We may patiently wait - and will be excited! - that something may come along which will completely flip evolution on its head. But the evidence is so overwhelming that to claim anything else without proof is just heckling.

I have shown the same for science. There is nothing everyone agrees is better.

And I repeat myself by saying science moves towards theories that are, in principle, unfalsifiable. It is not better or worse. It just gets to the point that it is the only viewpoint left by light of all available evidence and data.

Oh, we can.

Assuming the group is more valuable than the individual, sacrificing hostages to terrorists is a good idea.

Similarly, assuming no external forces act upon an inertial object, it will remain in inertia.

You can argue endlessly about the value of a human life in a group or an individual. You cannot falsify that claim. There is no experiment I could do that would produce the same result every time and lead to new understanding, because 'value' is a completely subjective point of view.

The way you make the second statement is most baffling. You say we are making an assumption. That is completely wrong. This is a testable, falsifiable claim that you can prove to yourself by repeating experiments. We have observed that an object in motion remains at motion given no sources of friction or whatnot. We have not assumed anything. Your baffling ability to somehow equate the two I cannot understand. It is exactly equivalent to the teapot argument. You are hiding yourself by saying "but it could have happened some other way!" That is not a testable statement. "But maybe there is a prime mover making sure the object stays inertial?" Sure could be. But it is not testable.

 

[unanun]

I am not proposing you live your life like that. I am proposing you acknowledge the existence of this ultimate uncertainty. Just because it isn't practical to live like nothing is true, doesn't mean that things are true. All we do is assume things will continue as expected, because life is easier that way.

Like, the possibility that quantum mechanics is wrong? It is the most verified theory in all of human history. The idea is that you have to produce evidence that can falsify quantum theory by way of clever experiment. If you make a claim to the contrary of established theory, you have to produce something that the theory is not able to predict or explain. Otherwise you are simply introducing points of view that are unfalsifiable. Worse still is the nebulous claim of 'but .. it could be wrong .. somehow ..'

 

[unanun]

All philosophy fits into this category, though I would replace observation and experiment with rational thought.

The number of viewpoints in philosophy have never been reduced with rational thought. I would love to see examples of this, when in physics the progression of classical to quantum mechanics is the most well documented, and the most taught process ever in science education world wide.

 

[Holmishire]

Irrefutable what? Examples?

This—

skepticism is .. *checks* oh boy .. a view point that precludes all discussion.

—is an example of the sort of irrefutable barrier of which I speak.

And I repeat myself by saying science moves towards theories that are, in principle, unfalsifiable. It is not better or worse

And I repeat myself by saying philosophy does the same.

You cannot falsify that claim. There is no experiment I could do that would produce the same result every time and lead to new understanding,

Yes, I can. If I make the right assumptions, I can show that every time there is only one possible result.

You have a gun, and are told to shoot the man beside you. Otherwise, both of you will be shot. Assuming more lives is better, you'll shoot the man beside you. Whether more lives is better or not may be true or untrue, but in this context, there is only one possible result.

The same is so for science. The only difference is that there is less—not none, less—doubt that the assumptions are correct in our world.

Also, I never specified, but the teapot is totally possible.

 

[unanun]

is an example of the sort of irrefutable barrier of which I speak.

By flat out denying everything?

Assuming more lives is better

That's an axiom. Unfortunately, the scientific method has no axioms. We only test. If I could take a photo of all space where you propose this teapot to be, then I can prove to you that it doesn't exist. There has never been any axiom in scientific inquiry. That is the problem with all philosophy, that everything follows from contradictory, unfalsifiable, unarguable viewpoints.

And I repeat myself by saying philosophy does the same.

Really? Since when does philosophy make any falsifiable claim? If your claim about more lives was falsifiable, we could test it. But wait, it's axiomatic ..........

 

[Holmishire]

Okay, I'm done, nothing personal.

Good day.

 

[unanun]

I think you illustrated it yourself quite perfectly when you showed a philosophical viewpoint was true contingent on an assumption that cannot be falsified (i.e. axiomatic). Like your assumption of group value of human life.

There is strange twistyness going on in your head where you think science is also making unfalsifiable assumptions. We can sit down and patiently work through scientific history and I can show you that the entire foundation of science is based upon making falsifiable assumptions (i.e. hypothesis). Like how we assume inertial properties of matter - but we can test our falsifiable assumption.

Then, we will return to philosophy and see that it cannot do the same.

That's all there is to this entire discussion. The rest is semantics about progress.

Most of communication is trying to get ideas across. I am sad that you all wore out before the interesting part came along.

 

[unanun]

Can philosophy ever claim to have followed a path like this?

"In place of naïve falsification, Popper envisioned science as progressing by the successive rejection of falsified theories, rather than falsified statements. Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories that can account for the phenomena that falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power. For example, Aristotelian mechanics explained observations of everyday situations, but were falsified by Galileo's experiments, and were replaced by Newtonian mechanics, which accounted for the phenomena noted by Galileo (and others). Newtonian mechanics' reach included the observed motion of the planets and the mechanics of gases. The Youngian wave theory of light (i.e., waves carried by the luminiferous aether) replaced Newton's (and many of the Classical Greeks') particles of light but in turn was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment and was superseded by Maxwell's electrodynamics and Einstein's special relativity, which did account for the newly observed phenomena. Furthermore, Newtonian mechanics applied to the atomic scale was replaced with quantum mechanics, when the old theory could not provide an answer to the ultraviolet catastrophe, the Gibbs paradox, or how electron orbits could exist without the particles radiating away their energy and spiraling towards the centre. Thus the new theory had to posit the existence of unintuitive concepts such as energy levels, quanta and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle."

 

[Asmodeus]

*glances around as he is left alone in the Progress corner*

o_o


M-M-Marxist theory was replaced by better stuff... as was Freudian theory and most of what Plato said.... They haven't remained intact. They've been disassembled and stripped for parts and carried through into other philosophies.

...er.......





I DEFAULT TO THE AUTISTIC KIDS AND THE FEMALE WOMENFOLK WHO ARE GIVEN A CHANCE TO IMPROVE SOCIETY BECAUSE WE MAKE THE PHILOSOPHICAL DECISION THAT THEY ARE PEOPLE AND SHOULDN'T BE PUT IN JESTER CAPS OR HORSE STIRRUPS! SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE THE CAUSE OF AUTISM OR THE BRAIN-MOTIONS OF WOMEN - BUT PHILOSOPHY CAN TAKE A CHANCE ON THE EFFECTS!


There's yer damn widgets, boy. Bill Gates would've been sweeping streets if philosophy hadn't progressed us to the belief that every child deserves a chance. And all these female inventors I found on Wikipedia wouldn't have invented stuff if you scientist dicks had carried on blabbering about the superiority of the male cigar-smoker.


......... er......


Does science lead to civil rights upheavals? Does it bring emancipation? Does it redefine morality? No - that's philosophy. And in the redefining of culture we expand the width and depth of the widgetosphere.

*patents widgetosphere*



When you're making widgets, you have to think of the working conditions. Most of those conditions have been influenced by essentially irrational and emotive philosophical breakthroughs.


....right?



*shores up his trench with the corpse of Jorick*

 

[Jorick]

*shores up his trench with the corpse of Jorick*

I'm not dead, I'm just tired of wasting all my ammunition on an immobile fortress of nonsense. I'm just hanging out and waiting for someone else to wander onto the battlefield, then I'll get back to work.

Until then, you're in charge of the trench. Since I'm already laying here I'm gonna take a nap.

 

[Asmodeus]

I thought you said (twice) that you were leaving?



*sprays Jorick with Unanun pheromones*

 

[Jorick]

I thought you said (twice) that you were leaving?

*sprays Jorick with Unanun pheromones*

Naw, I said I was done talking to Unanun about the topic, not with the thread as a whole. Reading comprehension is important.

Also, how exactly did you acquire such pheromones? I am both disturbed and intrigued by the idea that you might have a whole stock of pheromones matching those of various Iwaku users.

 

[Holmishire]

*shores up his trench with the corpse of Jorick*

Am I not a valuable soldier? Shall I also live in the eternal shadow of Jorick?

Unlike Jorick, I might be tempted to continue the argument at some later point. However, I realized it was consuming a lot of my spare time, and I really needed to focus on some schoolwork—well, I still do.

 

[Asmodeus]

That's not what you said, Jorick, and what I said was not what you said I said, and you focussed on the wrong part of what I said, which I didn't say, so I'm going to choose to quote the part of what you said that wasn't what you said, because you didn't read what I read when I read what you said.



FILOZOPHEEEEHH!