On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

quote:

---

He stated to LindaLou (why is she inactive, btw?)

---

She quit.Couldn't abide the bright light of inquiry when it shone upon her own irrational beliefs, as opposed to on others'.She didn't understand that we don't oppose Creationism because we don't like Creationism, per se.We oppose Creationism because it is unscientific, yet its proponents want it to be treated as scientific.Therefore, anything that similarly abuses science will get the same treatment.Truly, I just don't understand how someone can compartmentalize their mind like that. The cognitive dissonance must be incredibly uncomfortable. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I also admit that alot of philosophical assumptions are made in these two (and related) fields. I am slightly skeptical of a lot of the "answers" posed by psychology and sociology for this reason in particular. Meaning that some of the "answers" provided do not and cannot apply to everyone. Not all, but some, and that may very well change for me as the fields progress and more hard evidence is accumulated.

---

I'd just like to point out that the field of Psychology is huge, and contains a range of "hardness", as it were.On one end of the spectrum, you have very soft areas like many of the Social Psych and areas and at the other end, you have Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neuroscience.Believe me, people in the harder branches of Psychology have a fair bit of disdain for some of the mushy stuff that passes for science in the soft areas.

quote:

---

Isn't it at least somewhat instructive that the only way it seems philosophy can be defended is for its defenders to act like complete assholes?

---

ROTFLMAO!!Woe to the retail shop owner in a college town who hires philosophy majors.All those I have worked with, to a person, have been PITAs.

quote:

---

Car driver: I want to know how to drive my car faster. I don't really care how my engine works.

---

And we can determine when the car goes faster, or if it doesn't.

quote:

---

Engineer: I want to know how to make the carburettor more efficient. I don't really care about the physics of gases.

---

And we can determine when a carburator becomes more efficient, or if it doesn't.

quote:

---

Scientist: I want to know how gases act at extreme pressures. I don't really care how knowledge works.

---

And we can determine the actions of gases under extreme pressures.

quote:

---

Philosopher: I want to know what we mean when we say, 'I know'. I don't drive a car.

---

So, how do we know when the philosopher gets the right answer, or has a wrong answer?There is no way to tell.So what's the point of asking unanswerable questions?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Because they're there?

---

You just let me know what you get to the top of that mountain, OK?I won't hold my breath.

quote:

---

Anyway, the answerable questions are too easy.

---

Huh.There's a reason very, very, very few people make it all the way to the PhD level of science.That's becasue doing so is the opposite of "too easy".

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.

Wow.My prejudices are again reinforced.People who are into philosophy tend to be smug and annoying.

quote:

---

nator reminded us that in academia all roads lead to philosophy. When you do your science well, she pointed out, academia recognizes you as a Doctor of Philosophy (Science). Indeed it does. And when you do other things well, it still recognizes you as a Doctor of Philosophy, whatever your field. Different paths, same colour blue at the summit.

---

Yeah...and evolution is just a theory.

quote:

---

But assuming your original statement was correct, if all modern universities continue to bestow degrees with a title using the original medieval meaning, doesn't that by definition argue that the medieval meaning is still relevant and accepted?

---

I don't see why. I think it's just convention, and the "Philosophy" in "PhD" doesn't actually refer to what we think of as "philosophy" today.Someone who earns a Bachelor's of Science degree in the Performing Arts isn't a scientist, either, despite their degree. It is doubtful that they took a single science course during their entire undergraduate career, in fact.By contrast, my husband has a Bachelor of Arts degree in BioPsychology. Science courses were the vast majority of his curriculum.So, I don't really think that we can pin much meaning on to the whole Doctor of Philosophy title as it pertains to what we think of today as philosophy.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But let's take your points at full effect, and I think you did make an interesting argument. Wouldn't you agree that given the fact that Universities have changed names of degrees in the past, they'd likely have changed the name of their top degree (or at least a few would have) if the conventional meaning of the term was as odious and oxymoronic to real knowledge as has been suggested?

---

Meh, I don't think so. Academia is a place of tradition and convention; hallowed halls of the ivy walls and all that. Stuff gets put into place for one reason, meanings change over time, but as long as everybody knows what they all mean, it stays the same.You know, like we have the "laws" of thermodynamics but the "theory" of evolution, even though there is no real difference in surety or status within their diciplines.