On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

[qs]While your guys were arguing that people should be free, Borlaug was figuring out how to make it possible for them to be fed.[q/s]Wonderful defense of a person that I was never attacking and whose works I never questioned. Brilliant!Now, in order for your response to actually apply to what I said, you have to show that 1.5 billion people being fed means questions about freedom and the right of humanity to self-determination are meaningless. If the only thing you can do to attack philosophy is make apples to oranges comparisons, you don't have much. Your thesis seems to be that philosophy is worthless, not that it's worth less than other disciplines. The fact that Borlaug fed people says nothing whatsoever about whether the debate about liberty is meaningful. Apples and oranges, mate.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'm sorry that it wasn't obvious enough to you that I was showing you what it really looks like to contribute meaningfully to solving human problems. Saving the lives of billions with science compared to Gandhi's self-righteous, hypocritical preening mystic bullshit?Yes, it really is apples to oranges, isn't it?

Well, now that we've agreed that what you said has no bearing on what I said, do you have anything relevant to say?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It's so charming that you think that's what just happened, here.

I'll recap, let's see if you can catch up.You've been advancing the thesis that philosophy is worthless. I gave you a list of philosophers who argued for the idea that people should be free. Your non sequitor told me about a guy who fed people. I asked you to explain how people being fed shows that the idea of freedom is worthless, not that it's worth less than being fed. You have yet to respond to that request, although you did manage to insult one of the seven people I named.Did I miss anything?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Only everything, as far as I can tell. You presented what you thought were the headlining acts of philosophy; I made it clear that the best philosophy has to offer pales in comparison to the human contributions of science.You had a bitch-fit, whining that it was unfair to compare Gandhi's minuscule contributions to those of a giant like Borlaug's; I agreed with you that Borlaug's work was in a completely different class than the "work" of the people you mentioned. You seem to think that invalidates my argument, but you overlook that it is yours that is destroyed.And now you're trying to pretend like none of that happened. That about sums it up from my perspective.

Well, I've asked twice, you dodged twice and are now resorting to personal attacks. I imagine that's as close as anyone will ever get to an admission from you that your position is meritless.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

As much as I'd like to go back and forth where we both say how right we are and what a dumbass the other person is - because that really sounds like a great use of my time, honestly - I think I'll save my efforts for those who have tried to defend philosophy in a constructive way.But, honestly, be less of a sorehead, Subbie. You rolled up in here with a weak-ass argument, and you got spanked for it. Get over it. Move on. Picking out a line or two of your post that I didn't directly quote and then construing that as a "dodge" is pretty transparent, really.I don't expect you to agree, of course. The problem with adopting such a posture is that you really can't be seen to admit what a posture it is, no matter what. In the future, I'd suggest refraining from such agressive tactics, at least when the facts aren't on your side.

I will agree with you on one thing, the pointlessness of continuing.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

A PhD in any field makes a person a Doctor of Philosophy.Highest level. Top of the mountain.So nice to see you and Java reaching agreement.

1. Where do you think the notions of tentativity and falsifiability come from? Philosophy (Particularly Mill and Popper).2. What about the idea of paradigm shift that you referenced in another thread? Philosophy (Thomas Kuhn).3. What about the notion that citizens should be free to pursue their own lives as long as they don't harm anyone? Philosophy (Locke and Mill, amongst others).4. What about the idea that public policy should be decided by whether it has a beneficial or harmful effect on the populace, rather than by the application of an absolute morality? Philosophy (Utilitarian philosophers such as Bentham and Mill).You use these ideas and terminology constantly in your arguments here. Do you think they were always around, or were always obvious to everyone?Scientists don't think about what it is they're doing. They're too busy doing chemistry or physics, or whatever. So how can they describe what the scientific method is? Philosophy is the thing that looks at how scientist's acquire knowledge, which is why terms such as 'scientific method' are philosophical terminology. They're such familiar terms that they always seems to have been around. But they haven't - someone invented them.I can understand some of your frustration with philosophy (and especially with philosophy majors :mad. Plato drives me up the wall, for example. But I do recommend that you dip into some of the empiricist philosophers (all of the examples I gave above, with the exception of Kuhn, are examples of empiricist philosophy). So here are a few suggestions for your reading list :John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
Both of these are short, well-written and exhilirating (especially for a liberal).George Berkeley, The Principles of Knowledge
This was the book that converted me. Berkeley is most famous for the weird idea that things only exist when someone's observing them. But don't let that put you off. It contains a wonderfully precise demolition of the notion that the existence of abstract ideas proves the existence of non-material things (which was the mainstay of medieval theology, and is an idea you still see constantly being put forward here). It also ends with some pretty astounding foreshadowing of quantum theory and relativity (although maybe that's just me reading too much into it ). Edited by JavaMan, : typo

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

quote:

---

A PhD in any field makes a person a Doctor of Philosophy.

​

Highest level. Top of the mountain.

​

So nice to see you and Java reaching agreement.

---

Gag.

Er, no. Philosophers of science have not created the philosophy of science; they simply described what scientists were already doing. Into someone who gives philosophers credit for the work of others?

You really do have a bee in your bonnet about this, don't you? Scientists do science; philosophers are responsible for theorizing about how science works. As you've said, why would a scientist be bothered to do that?I haven't claimed heliocentrism, or Newton's laws, or evolution, or relativity for philosophy. Those are the work of scientists. But the notions of tentativity, falsifiability and paradigm shift are the work of philosophers. I even gave the names of the philosophers who invented the terms, for God's sake!

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

I thought the use of a smiley was a clear indication that I was making a lighthearted comment. Why are you wasting your time trying to refute a joke?

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang