Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 244 of 307 (433282)
11-10-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Quetzal
11-10-2007 9:22 AM


Not too late for philosophy?
Hello, it looks like I'm coming in a bit late, but I saw this interesting thread and decided to toss a few pennies into the fountain.
I'm surprised by the amount of negative emotion toward Philosophy. Perhaps it stems from the following viewpoint...
The quote clearly distinguishes between "philosophy" and "science". My distaste (for lack of a better word) for "philosophy" stems from the latter part of the bolded sentence, which indicates that "philosphy" as defined above is speculation without any basis in fact (or to be kind, speculation in the absence of fact).
Though Modulous didn't address your criticism, I'd point out that his original statement correctly included the word "also". Philosophy "also" covers areas where no facts are available, not "only". It can but doesn't have to. I know mod gave a dictionary definition of Philosophy before, but I think the Wiki entry is more illuminating.
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic)...
Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era, it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy. Different philosophers have had varied ideas about the nature of reason, and there is also disagreement about the subject matter of philosophy. Some think that philosophy examines the process of inquiry itself. Others, that there are essentially philosophical propositions which it is the task of philosophy to prove...
Until the Renaissance, 'philosophy' and 'science' were considered the same discipline.
Though certain schools of philosophy and fields of study might involve pure speculation, not all philosophers do or must. Science is natural philosophy and the switch in terminology is a matter of semantics rather than true division. A scientist does in general practice philosophy, even if not all philosophers end up practicing science. Does that make sense?
I agree with assessments that pure speculation is at heart mental masturbation. Then again I can't get worked up over how someone decides to diddle with their brain. To each his own, I just won't join that particular circle... or eat the cookie as it were. I might add such "personal" activity seems pretty much confined to metaphysics, aesthetics (something even wiki appeared to miss), and certain strains of epistemology.
Logic, which is clearly Philosophy, includes math and informal logic which are crucial features of science. It would be hard to imagine modern science without them. Epistemology, when held tight to practical concerns, was important for creating the scientific method, and is important for evaluating current science methodology. Ethics is definitely not science, and yet it does have a practical side. Even the most vociferous deniers of philosophy in this thread seem to engage in ethical debates across EvC. That is philosophy.
Indeed anyone that enjoys courtroom dramas, sitcoms, and large swaths of scifi/fantasy are generally enjoying staged ethical debates. Such people don't dislike philosophy then, they just prefer their philosophers in costume and some sort of weaponry at hand (biting sarcasm in the case of sitcoms).
As far as metaphysics is concerned, and philosophizing beyond where facts are available, I have to admit to some "self-flagellation" as I enjoy reading about theoretical physics and cosmology. The copenhagen interpretation is essentially a metaphysical position. So is relativity, which certainly did not have evidence available at the time, and would not for some time to come. It was a way of thinking about nature. Current string theory is about the same thing.
Okay, enough for now. I just wanted to clarify that... from my experience anyway... not all philosophy is pure speculation, even after the nominal split between science and philosophy. And so maybe people don't have to get upset with the word philosophy, or the idea that they might be commiting such acts.
Then again, if people want to redefine the word Philosophy as meaning acts of pure speculation, that's fine too, let's just keep in mind that some current philosophers don't fall into that category and will need a new word to cover their pursuits.
Also--- for everyone that hates philosophy and thinks it impractical--- does that mean there's something oxymoronic in obtaining a PhD in the physical sciences?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Quetzal, posted 11-10-2007 9:22 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2007 12:52 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 246 of 307 (433363)
11-11-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by crashfrog
11-11-2007 12:52 AM


Re: Not too late for philosophy?
Hello, I made the mistake of reading the beginning and end of the thread and skipping the middle. It figures Archer mentioned PhDs, since I agreed with his running commentary. Of course he did it more eloquently. I thought that would've been a show stopper.
Actually there were a lot of good posts. Clearly I would agree with people like Archer, Mod, bluegenes, etc. And NJ had some great points even if I disagree with what he thought Hume's intentions were. That is not to suggest that your or Quetzal's posts were bad. Actually, being a hug Hume fan, I liked how Q began the thread pitting philosophy against philosophy.
However it seemed to me the whole debate boiled down to you and Q (and others that were not as prolific in writing) holding some personal definition of philosophy, which does not square with history or modern practice. Interestingly you call yours the modern definition, but I have never seen that used, nor practiced, by philosophers or scientists I've been around.
If many philosophers and scientists disagree with your definition, do you think that they should change to fit yours or vice versa?
On PhDs, your response was not quite accurate. Here's a bit o' history from Wiki...
European universities in the Middle Ages generally placed all academic disciplines outside the fields of theology, medicine and law under the broad heading of "philosophy" (or "natural philosophy" when referring to science). The degree of Doctor of Philosophy was the most junior of the doctorates, generally granted as honorary degrees to select and well-established scholars. According to Wellington, Bathmaker, Hung, MucCullough and Sikes (2005), the first Ph.D. was awarded in Paris, in 1150; however, not until the early nineteenth century, these authors explain, did the term "Ph.D.", thanks to university practice in Germany, acquire its modern meaning (as Wellington et al. explain, initially, doctoral theses could only be awarded in theology, law or medicine prior to the nineteenth century). In 1861, Yale University adopted the German practice (first introduced in the 19th century at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin) of granting the degree to younger students who had completed a prescribed course of study and successfully defended a thesis containing original research in science or in the humanities...
From the United States the degree spread to Canada in 1900, and then to the United Kingdom in 1917... This displaced the existing Doctor of Philosophy degree in some Universities; for instance, the D.Phil. (higher doctorate in the faculty of philosophy) at the University of St Andrews was discontinued and replaced with the Ph.D. (research doctorate). Some UK universities such as Oxford, Buckingham and Sussex (and, until a few years ago, York) retain the D.Phil. abbreviation for their research degrees, as do some universities in New Zealand.
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?
Is there a reason why we shouldn't use the definition of philosophy as Archer, Mod, et al. have set out, which simply limits your and Q's criticisms (which I would agree with) to sections of philosophy rather than the whole?
Frankly I'd rather improve the image of Philosophy by reducing those sections to being called sheer speculation. Weeding them out so to speak. And then we can keep PhDs!
Edited by Silent H, : and to end

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2007 12:52 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2007 9:11 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 248 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 10:13 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 253 of 307 (433460)
11-12-2007 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by nator
11-11-2007 10:13 PM


Re: Not too late for philosophy?
I think it's just convention, and the "Philosophy" in "PhD" doesn't actually refer to what we think of as "philosophy" today.
I thought that's what the Wiki quote was suggesting, though I must admit I am still not understanding what Q and C (and U? heheheh) mean by a modern concept of philosophy? When did this come about?
You make a good point about the relative merits of a specific term within a degree. It is my understanding that it comes from the nature of the "school" within a university that offered the degree. An Arts degree generally being a school, or course of instruction, that involves more than just a concentrated study. Arts being from liberal arts meaning a broad array of study. Thus one can have an arts degree in a science.
In any case that would seem to be different than the name of the LEVEL of degree. I don't think the Ph in PhD is the equivalent of the S or A in a B(X) degree, but rather the B. B, M, Ph... The concept of the Ph degree being that you have placed a lot of time and effort to examine and gain knowledge above others (top o' the mountain as Archer suggested)in a specific area of knowledge.
That's how it seems to me anyway.
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?
For example if in medieval days they called applied serious study of a subject as Crap, and handed diplomas out with that title, I tend to doubt Universities would be handing out Crap Degrees just for the sake of tradition.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 10:13 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Wounded King, posted 11-12-2007 3:56 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 259 by nator, posted 11-12-2007 7:07 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 255 of 307 (433464)
11-12-2007 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by crashfrog
11-11-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Not too late for philosophy?
And how do you explain the fact that its entirely possible to get a PhD without ever doing a whit of philosophy, as so many PhD graduates have been able to do?
I'm not sure how or where you get a PhD without doing philosophy, unless its a disreputable University.
As mentioned in the Wiki article in my first post above, one common agreement about philosophy is that it is a method and not a specific set of subjects or beliefs. Did you have a problem with that stated methodology? Isn't that what all people do in order to get PhDs (which is what my second Wiki article suggested)?
Yes you don't have to take a course in some specific field of philosophy, you are hopefully at that point practicing philosophy to gain greater understanding of your specified field.
Philosophy lacks rigor because it can't distinguish true models from false ones. Even if some portions of philosophy can do that, if other portions can't, it's irrelevant. If testable models are held in the same esteem as untestable ones - i.e. it's all "philosophy" - then philosophy as a whole lacks rigor.
That doesn't really make sense, and ID is a great example. There are scientists who support ID and argue that it is valid science. You and I would clearly say that is not the case, and that their existence does not in turn paint the whole of science with their concept of what science itself is (which is actually a valid form of science from many centuries ago).
Likewise with Philosophy. Philosophers can't help that some continue to practice outmoded fields and schools and claim they are doing philosophy. Modern philosophers certainly can determine which are not fruitful pursuits for gaining knowledge, using the tools of philosophy, and Q's opening post showed one doing just that from two centuries ago.
I'm not sure what you mean by untestable models being held in equal esteem as testable ones. I think all philosophers agree models must be tested, the question is if it has to be with empirical evidence or not. Some think they don't, but that does not mean they are held as equal, or must be, by any other philosopher... or philosophy itself.
One complaint that might be lodged is that Philosophy allows for some ideas to be tested, within a paradigm that science (empirical research) does not currently cover. But that is not damning as it is an allowance for the logical testing of an idea (its coherence) within a paradigm, not a mandate that anyone think it is real, equal, or even have to consider it at all.
As I did mention, this tends to hold for some things acceptable to science today, like the CI and GR and String Theory, which at the time were dealt with empirical evidence, but were advancing nonscientific (that is beyond testable proofs at the time) theories. They did beautiful philosophical work which merged into science, and shaped what we see today.
To fail to distinguish between schools with rigor and schools without is the exact same thing as not distinguishing between truth and fiction, and therefore, philosophy has no rigor. One non-rigorous apple spoils the bunch.
I am not failing to distinguish between them, I am saying I can see them as clearly separate. Isn't your argument that no one should, and so the whole thing must be viewed as a barrel of bad apples?
Hume was clearly arguing that the rotten ones should be thrown out. Grown up modern philosophers can and do just that. If I encounter someone speculating, and then claiming to be philosophizing, I'll point out the difference, just as we both would point out the difference to an ID theorist.
As a final point along this same line... as I mentioned the science ID uses was at one time valid science protocol. Dembski admits as such in his books. Now long ago there were some who practiced science in a rigorous empirical manner, and some in a less rigorous way. That remains true today, though much less so the latter (despite attempts by IDers to popularize it). Back then should someone have dismissed all of science, and all scientists, because it allowed for less rigorous pursuits?
I would argue no, just like today. Same for philosophy, even if you have a slightly greater number of nonrigorous types than science (a subset of philosophy dedicated to empirical, natural inevstigation) at this time.
I hope this was clear as this is very late. I may not be able to write again for a couple days... just a heads up.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2007 9:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 12:46 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 256 of 307 (433465)
11-12-2007 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Wounded King
11-12-2007 3:56 AM


Re: Not too late for philosophy?
Okay one last post...
Not so, an alternative formula for Ph.D. is D.Phil.. The reversal in the form 'Ph.D.' comes from the latin Philosophiæ doctor. The elements denoting any sort of 'ranking' would be the 'B','M' and 'D' in increasing length of study required.
I see what you're saying, but doesn't that actually mean the degrees go in rank from B, M, then PhD? That is to say its neither just the Ph nor the D alone, but the singular PhD? I thought that's what the Wiki entry was suggesting, but screwed up when I wrote the reply and excluded the D (thinking "degree"... duhhhh). In particular it discussed how D.Phil and PhD came into conflict because of pre-existing doctorates for philosophers.
Now I'm really going to bed, most likely will be busy for a day or two, so keep that in mind.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Wounded King, posted 11-12-2007 3:56 AM Wounded King has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 265 of 307 (433609)
11-12-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 12:46 PM


Re: Not too late for philosophy?
Work hit a snag so I can come out and play today! Most of your reply can be addressed briefly, as much of it seems to be miscommunication between us...
1) I thought I made it clear that PhD students DON'T have to take Phil courses. In that I totally agree with you. I said they have to DO philosophy, that is they perform philosophy, in pursuit of their final degree. I might add that in certain schools you don't have to take a science class to get a PhD in science either, at that level you usually are doing things, not learning about them.
2) You ask what methodology, but I stated directly the methods listed within the Wiki article (2nd one I posted). They state that it is commonly agreed that philosophy is a method, and describe it (in general terms). I posit people tend to use that in pursuing PhDs. Right?
3) You didn't have to repeat an earlier rebuttal. I was trying to explain to you that (what you now just repeated) is in error. I started by agreeing with what we'd both do (as scientists) and then explained the similarity in Philosophy. Your only counter appears to be...
That doesn't happen in philosophy. Consider Plato v. Aristotle, a debate that remains unsettled to this day, 2300 years later. They can't both be right, so one of them must be wrong. Regardless of that, both Plato and Aristotle enjoy great prominence among philosophers, and their respective positions continue to be defended to this very day by an assortment of philosophers.
??? What debate remains unsettled? Right or wrong about what? I'm not being sarcastic. They all said a lot of stuff. And I have to say I never bumped into a philosopher who was still wrangling over PnA, studying yes (but that is more or less History or methods of philosophy), but not thinking these guys are modern or relevant in any and all aspects. Its just that they were great figures at the beginning of the field (which ironically for you, includes science). Outside of history of ancient philosophy, and to some extent ethics, they are rarely discussed, much less used as examples of contemporary relevance.
In philosophy, models that must surely be wrong continue to enjoy prominence, and their level of support is not diminished for being wrong.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. But don't worry about reacting to this yet. I want to create another post which might explain some things, perhaps iron out some misunderstandings/misinterpretations. You appear to be hung up on the application, rather than the methods.
So why aren't they thrown out? Because philosophy gives no justification for doing so. Sure, you can insist on rigor the way Hume and Dennett do - or you can choose not to. Either way, it's all the same to philosophy. You certainly won't be marginalized as a philosopher for disagreeing with Hume and Dennett, the way Woo-Suk was for violating the scientific method.
I'm using this specific statement to reply to your earlier, larger section. First of all there is a huge difference between being wrong and being fraudulent. Second science does not throw out scientists who were wrong, only their theories. Even Einstein made mistakes, indeed much of the last portion of his career was dedicated to what modern science considers an error (with solid evidence packed in years before). No one is talking about throwing out Einstein, or Bohr, or Darwin, or Newton, etc. Active scientists can make many mistakes. It is the nature of their successes at their periods of time which made them great. Same for philosophy.
You can even go back and check their errors to see what went wrong and find useful information... even genius sometimes.
As far as validity and truth goes, what is the difference? I ask because as soon as you move to answer what you are doing IS philosophy and there's no way around it. I can tell the difference because I have an answer which comes from a line of Philosophy, which I accept, that is a pretty strong current in philosophy today. If you have an answer I'd like to know where you got it, if it wasn't the application of reason to the question.
In philosophy, wrong ideas are never excluded, because there's no way to tell which ideas in philosophy are actually wrong.
Excluded? Wrong? Even science does not exclude ideas at the outset because they are wrong. It excludes avenues which are not capable of being addressed by specific methodology, but that is not the same as saying it is wrong... simply indefinable. Once included, it may make a determination and so exclude a wrong theory, until perhaps later evidence recalls its potential credibility.
On this note you mention Lamark as a punchline. I never saw it that way. His name is still in the papers as it were. It was a valid concept he held, but ultimately not productive. Ironically, it could turn out... given later evidence... that Lamarkian mechanisms do appear at certain levels or in certain species during reproduction. In that case, you'd have to admit he'd enjoy a certain vindication, and the joke would be on you. Right?
Never say never, or absolutely wrong in science. Does that mean it is indiscriminate? No. Another good example happens to be research (lit) that I am coincidentally working on now. The original Double Slit experiment proved that light was waves, it is thought an incredibly important experiment even today, despite the "discovery" being acknowledged as quite wrong.
Likewise people still use models of atoms and electrons which are wholly inaccurate to the underlying "truth", they are valid for predictions but not true to nature. What can ya do?
I hope this doesn't seem upsetting, or necessarily involving emotional baggage. I see what you are saying and we could talk the way you do, I'm just saying that it IS a personal definition you seem to be using. I'm trying to explain what I see as the modern interpretation of Philosophy, and show how I understand its usage and practice. Given the dictionary and Wiki entries on the subject (as well as posters here), your definition does not seem to be the actual mainstream understanding.
The scientific method is science, not philosophy. Logic is mathematics, not philosophy. Textual analysis (like you might do for a degree in literature) is criticism, not philosophy.
I saved this for last to exemplify the non mainstream nature of your definition. Logic is not math, quite the opposite: math is a form of logic, and logic is a field of philosophy. I'm not sure how you can view that as anything but the mainstream view.
Likewise, while I can certainly agree that the scientific method is science, science is a branch of philosophy and whether you agree with that assessment or not, its pretty unquestioned that the scientific method was developed through philosophy (philosophers attempting to gain knowledge about natural phenomena, using empirical evidence).
While I can accept your change in modern definition if I must, that doesn't retroactively change who was doing what in the past, or what methods were being employed. Again, I will be using another post to try and make this all clearer.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 12:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 5:19 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 266 of 307 (433625)
11-12-2007 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by nator
11-12-2007 7:07 AM


Re: Not too late for philosophy?
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.
And what do you understand philosophy to mean? The statement above seems to support my position. If philosophy came to mean crap (literal or figurative) and only crap, and people could not divine the actual meaning then I doubt such degrees would be handed out.
Given that some rather important figures in science, such as Einstein, Bell, Newton, etc described themselves as philosophers or engaging in philosophical study, makes me ask when this other, modern, derogatory definition of philosophy came about?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by nator, posted 11-12-2007 7:07 AM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 268 of 307 (433671)
11-12-2007 6:42 PM


Philosophy by example
This might be seen as an addendum to Mod's post. I want to walk through philosophy as I understand it, and people can let me know where I am getting mixed up. So as an up front you can always caveat my statements with "from what I know/learned/experienced".
Philosophy is a method for obtaining knowledge. It began with people asking what they understand (know) about X (which could be anything on any subject). This means that they decided to apply their reason (mental faculties) to address X, rather than take for granted what they had been told, or base instructions regarding.
At its root then, any endeavour which seeks to gain knowledge about X, using reason, is a philosophical endeavour. That is by definition not saying that everything is philosophy, nor is it to imply that anything using reason alone counts as MODERN philosophy. The latter would assume no growth in philosophy.
Fields of study emerged, as well as refined tools of reason. Some of these are treated interchangeably but there really is a distinction which is important.
Logic itself is a tool and the philosophical field of Logic an understanding and development of that tool. It is a sharpening of reason's edge by finding consistent results in certain kinds of arguments or ideas: essentially the necessary relationship between one idea (or premise) and another. This is the cornerstone of all rational inquiry. Its most common and useful forms are math, and informal logic. If you are NOT using logic during your inquiry, I don't know any philosopher that would agree you are doing philosophy.
Epistemology is also a tool, though it relies on the use of logic. It inquires about the nature of knowledge itself, which helps one assess criteria for claims to knowledge. Without at least a hidden, assumed premise regarding this field, claims to knowledge (including those based on evidence) are just flapping in the wind. It is through examining how one knows, or should be allowed to claim knowledge, that rules are produced and checked and improved... and perhaps most importantly understand where the limits of knowledge from a line of intellectual pursuit is drawn.
The remaining fields of Philosophy are applications of the above tools toward some subject X grouped into common themes. There is the theme of what is the essential nature of the world (metaphysics), what is pleasing (aesthetics), what drives (or should drive) human action (ethics), and how does this observed phenomena work (natural inquiry).
These fields developed schools of thought as Mod pointed out. Philosophy as an academic subject regards understanding all of the fields, both tools and applications, as well as their history and some of the "great thinkers". That does not suggest any are venerated as "right" or modern. Indeed I'm not aware of any program that doesn't divide between ancient and modern philosophy.
One important reason for this distinction is that the field of natural inquiry (natural philosophy) was a pretty common subject, people wanted to get a handle on what they could manipulate, and it drove certain other fields toward conclusions of productivity (or lack thereof) as regards THAT THEME. Especially with regards to epistemology and metaphysics, there came a development of specific protocols/understandings which when accepted routinely gave greater productivity. It required dedication to a narrow way of inquiry (championed by philosophers like Descartes [accidentally], Newton, Hume) which was different than those of the ancients.
This is not to say that the ancients produced nothing, just that they didn't produce as much as quickly. Their methods were not as concise. And of course like anyone, sometimes they could just be flipping wrong.
The field of natural philosophy took off and was so distinct a field, with such specific rules, that it eventually was called by its own name... science. That doesn't erase that it came from philosophy, nor that what scientists are doing IS philosophy: applying specific logic and epistemological tools, to a generally assumed metaphysical model to examine natural phemonena.
These specific tools are not necessary to generate productive results for every theme and subject that can be addressed. And that does not make those themes or subjects less "worthy" or "rigorous". Logic is the tool underlying all of this so as rigorous as that is, so goes the theme's examination by philosophy.
If a subject does not have enough material, examined by logic, to produce an answer, that doesn't make it bankrupt, that makes it as yet undefined... just like any frontier of science.
Worth is a subjective opinion. Some may feel examining the world in extreme environments isn't very worthy, or the minutiae of some animal's biology or habits. Certainly most scientists can find work by others scientists that leave them scratching their head at why someone would want to study that. And yes, someone can decide to inquire about something OTHER than natural phenomena. A scientist can of course feel that those subjects aren't productive in a material sense, and so not worthy. It does not logically denigrate philosophy as a whole, that someone decides to apply philosophical techniques (and so do philosophy) on a subject another person doesn't like.
As it is I tend not to believe people, particularly scientists, who claim they don't like philosophy or think it is bankrupt. I tend to think their minds are a bit to inquisitive to park a brain outside natural phenomena.
Scientists (who I've mentioned in previous posts) routinely use and develop: logic, epistemology, and metaphysics. Particularly as science expands into the realm of extreme environments, investigations are becoming routinely metaphysical at the outset, followed by investigations into the refined metaphysic.
Further, in the evc debate itself, I routinely see evos discuss biblical texts to refute creos within their own paradigm. That is not science, that is logic, which is philosophy, and ironically what is necessary to refute (because science could not touch such things). Thus, clearly, philosophy CAN discern between valid and invalid, as well as true and untrue. For example, that the instructions of Noah's ark might render an impossible structure given geometry, proves the assertion invalid and untrue. We can throw such claims out, and a "philosopher" that hangs on to it is wrong.
Oh of course they can still be a philosopher, just as any scientist can stay a scientist after an error. But continued protestations of a correct claim is invalid, untrue and the person is understandably ignored on that subject.
Finally, just about everyone likes to debate, or watch debates, on ethics. That is inherently philosophy and cannot be derived from scientific investigation, even if the results of such investigations can help us make ethical decisions. The key is the ethical formula, not the understanding of a natural phenomena.
Summing up, philosophy is a broad field with the common trait that it is the investigation of a subject using reason. In modern terms that involves acceptance of modern logic, math and informal logic. When investigating natural phenomena the COMMON assumption of MODERN philosophers is the scientific method (with its logic, epistemology, and general metaphysical assumptions).
Man do I hope this helps. Is this something we can agree on? If not, why not? You don't have to hit every point, and can create your own freestanding explanation if you want.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 6:49 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 270 of 307 (433716)
11-12-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 5:19 PM


Re: More tired arguments
I just wrote a huge freestanding explanation which answers many of your questions here... especially whether I am in the "everything is philosophy" crowd. Answer: No.
Aristotle Vs. Plato. Look, here's a pile of student essays on the subject, which substantiates my claim that this debate has yet to be settled more than 2300 years after either figure was alive.
Clearly you saw my statement that "Outside of history of ancient philosophy, and to some extent ethics, they are rarely discussed". You have the quote in your text. So I'm not sure why you bring this up.
I looked through some of those papers and they all appeared to be discussing the nature of the arguments these men made at the time. That is history and methodology, not product. The possible exception is ethical-political issues. Plato's Republic often returns as an applicable subject, when we hear people arguing for censorship, or greater gov't controls.
If you saw one stating how fresh and alive and unsolved their debate is, oh we can't live without that resolution, please link to it. Otherwise my point is made.
The great names in philosophy are held in esteem no matter what they say, and previous success in the field leads people to think that subsequent work is also true, even though there's no reason that should automatically be the case. So here we are, 2300 years after Plato and Aristotle can't both be right, and yet both men are considered two of the greatest philosophers who have ever lived.
This really is a caricature. They are venerated as having been founders and extremely influential. I personally do not find them the greatest that ever lived, or even at that time. Nor have I ever observed that during instruction. They were certainly intelligent, and interesting, but more of note for their different methods. There longterm efficacy was limited... except ethics.
Regarding Einstein, you ignored my point. Einstein's theories have been thrown out, not his stature. So goes it with P n A.
Regarding Flew, I don't know him and I'm not sure what you want done with him. If his logic was correctly criticized, what else do you want, that's the same as having your logic or evidence criticized in natural investigations. Its worthless, anyone hanging on to him is like someone still plugging away at phlogiston. Don't ask me why but people (especially in local time scales) tend to hang on to such things. Like Einstein, his philosopher card doesn't get pulled. As far as an ethics scandal, that is up to his employers. There is no company called Philosophy, that has exclusive hiring/firing rights.
I should add same for science. Your examples of discredited scientists in no way argues that such people cannot or do not work as scientists (perhaps even do good work) after ethics scandals. An argument that SCIENTISTS refuse to hire other scientists caught with their pants down, is not an argument that SCIENCE throws them out or has any such requirements. That's a social thing, not a science methodology issue.
Mathematicians are mathematicians, not philosophers, and ever since Russel, Boole, and Napier, logic has been a form of mathematics. I'm aware it's the tendency of philosophers to appropriate the successes of other fields, but it's arrogant and ridiculous and I ask you to stop. It disrespects the great minds in science and mathematics for philosophers to take the credit without having supplied any of the work.
That is an assertion on your point. And an insult. And kind of funny to see an ethical appeal not to hurt the great minds of science and math. Who made you gate-keeper of science? Once again, I am a scientist and have a great respect for science. I have also studied its foundations and its history. I'm explaining that your definitions do not seem to match history or even modern usage.
Can you explain why both the dictionary and wiki list logic as being under philosophy, and the latter listing math as under logic? In fact, I'm still not sure how you would interpret the idea that logic is math, your statement, as if that excludes philosophy.
The consistent theme seems to be your definition is right... period... end of discussion. I am not doing that to you.
The scientific method was developed by scientists doing science. People were doing science - accruing knowledge by observation and empirical testing - long before any so-called "philosophers of science" were around to tell them how to do it.
Ahem, the philosophy of science is completely different than a philosopher doing natural philosophy, which later was called science.
You do admit that those doing what we call science now were known as natural philosophers, right? And there was simply a semantic shift, with no change in what they were doing? Its a subset of rational investigation. The most powerful, productive, form of rational (meaning with reason) investigation into natural phenomena we have.
If you don't believe me, ask some scientists!
I sure did... I'm telling you the answers. That you by fiat define anything scientific as not philosophy, metaphysical/epistemological/logical rules used in science as not philosophy, allows only one outcome. Otherwise, if one is aware of the history of the development of these things, one will see that scientists take philosophy courses at the outset at the very least, and have a great concern for it all the time.
My question would any scientists know when the are actually using philosophy or not, if they don't know the history and methodology of philosophy? You can learn any skill and apply rules without knowing where they come from or what they mean. That does not change the fact that they came from somewhere or have a certain meaning.
Heheheh... now that I think about it this sort of feels like I'm explaining to a creo how humans descended from common ancestors, and I keep getting told they aren't an ape, and humans were humans all along!
Really science is a form of philosophical inquiry and was once called that specifically. Hence, science owes a lot to the philosophers who pushed science from its infancy to what it is today. And no, they never needed any philosophers of science. We clearly agree on that.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 5:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 9:10 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 271 of 307 (433722)
11-12-2007 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 6:49 PM


Re: Philosophy by example
Well that's fair, but check out 270, which answers some of your last points to me.
One thing I feel is missing from your side, is an explanation of the history of science, and its methodologies. That's what I was trying to show. How rational inquiry led to x, y, z. If you disagree, what is your version of events? Can you name people, and how they described themselves and their activities?
Also, when the likes of Einstein and Bell (I'll stick with relative recent heavyweights) voluntarily don the mantle of philosophy and describe their own works as philosophy, why is that not right? I should add that includes work that is totally part of science.
You have also not addressed, as far as I can remember, my points regarding the edges of science, particularly physics, chemistry, and cosmology. Those tend to involve metaphysical statements beyond current evidence which can discriminate, and some beyond likely tests, just to generate useful concepts for understanding the field as a whole. Also, the continued use of patently false models by science because of general utility. I think these point to characteristics that you deride in philosophy, but exist in science.
And finally, what about ethics?
You don't have to answer, but I'm setting out where I feel I'm missing something from your side. If you want to add something new, that's what I'd be interested in seeing. Thanks!

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 6:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 9:14 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 274 of 307 (433813)
11-12-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 9:10 PM


Re: More tired arguments
Let's erase the board and start again, because I'm feeling a lot of goal posts are shifting, and (additionally) that you are attacking a straw man of my position.
If you are merely stating that P n A are highly regarded philosophers, then I agree. However, that does not mean they are considered examples of valid lines of inquiry for modern philosophy, or that the theories they expounded are "equal" to modern theories regarding the world.
They are important for their historical significance. They were some pretty intelligent guys who existed at the foundation of consistent rational inquiry of Western Civilization. Also, they were influential on the shape of such inquiry (many might argue unduly so) for a very long time. Finally, some of their arguments are good examples of methods of inquiry (which does not mean valid today), as well as a few (usually ethical/political) which commonly get restated by people today (often ignorant of the precedent or the refutations).
Philosophy students definitely DO study them, and write about them in that context. I have not seen or heard, including in your links, of any department touting them (or their inquiries) as being relevant today on some equal footing with modern questions and methods, particularly because of who they were.
I can't believe you'd suggest that Philosophy as a whole engages in Appeal to Authority as part of its inherent methodology. That's a fallacy and you get taught it in logic class.
To be honest, you have done more boosting of these guys in this thread than I ever saw over my whole curricula. The have some catchy quotes, they are historically significant, and some of their arguments work as nice examples. That's it.
And I don't really care what Kant's opinion is about them. That sounded like a personal statement of reverence. Other philosophers have said negative things about them, I think Nietszche was one and Hume's quote would count. Personally, and I know there are other philosophers who believe the same, P n A were not necessarily the best of that time period. Personally I prefer democritus, epicurus, and epictetus (among others). That said, they were NOT as influential at that time and so for a long time in the West. What am I gonna do, cry?
As it is a huge line stands between ancient philosophy (its accepted methods and pursuits), and modern philosophy. I just don't know of anyone (including your links) which suggest they are relevant and need to be listened to today... except in ethics?
Regarding Flew I actually have no knowledge of the subject. I will take your word for it that some guy with bad logic, and I guess a problem with plagiarism, got something published. I'm still not sure how you label all philosophers or philosophy itself as being negligent or incapable because of this case. You say non-philosophers got their hand on it, and THEN its flawed logic was criticized... but that begs the question doesn't it? Besides plagiarism, which is something else altogether, how did people take apart the bad arguments? Logic, right? That would be philosophy, which means these people were engaging with the work as philosophers... unless you simply redefine them for a convenient conclusion.
It seems what you might be arguing is that professional philosophers missed some bad logic and allowed some bad logic to get published? Okay, those are specific people, not everyone.
I don't think Philosophy has a Universal Peer Review.
Because philosophers are bullshit artists, and part of their bullshit is getting other people to give them credit for things they have nothing to do with.
First, despite your repeated accusations I have ignored earlier posts, I really did read a lot of them, including the ones you just posted! While they are both flawed, I actually got a chuckle out of the last one... well written.
That said, if you cannot recognize the above statement as a serious logical fallacy... assuming it is a serious answer to my direct question... I wouldn't go pointing fingers at philosophers for having problems finding flawed logic.
This really is an issue about definitions. You are using one which you hold to be valid. Okay, now I am asking for evidence to show why it should be used. It does not seem to fit the historical use of the term, nor its modern practice, as I have understood it. I laid out the etymology as it were and progression of that field as I understand it.
If your answer is that there is a grand conspiracy of (apparently) successful bullshit artists to convince masses of people that they created everything and to use some self-promoting definitions which just aren't true... I can only raise an eyebrow and ask what your evidence is for THAT.
Now that science, logic/mathematics, and even social science/ethics have been spawned off into their own fields, all that's left under the heading "philosophy" is that which was of no use for creating human knowledge. Philosophy is simply the dumping ground for unanswerable questions, and for people who would rather hear themselves talk than engage meaningfully with the body of human knowledge.
On the other hand, the statement above is the germ of an interesting argument for changing definitions. Not that they have changed, but that maybe we should now. For example, why don't we treat each of those categories as separate fields in their own right using an individual title, and stop using the term philosophy (which is where they all stemmed from) altogether... or leave it to those dealing with, what exactly?
I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, other than to ask why we should bother, why not stick with them as names of fields within philosophical inquiry as a whole and (agreeing with you) any other pursuit within philosophy is pretty pointless?
Is there some reason that would be impractical or odious? You don't want to feel tarnished by someone pursuing some other field being associated with doing the same thing as you? Come on that's the same argument for keeping gays from getting "married", people not wanting that act (which they don't like) being seen as identical to theirs.
If YOU know your rational inquiry involves greater rigor than someone else, isn't that good enough? Isn't that all you need?
Scientists don't think of themselves as philosophers; or when they do, they recognize that to "do philosophy" is to be doing something fundamentally different than to be "doing science."
Are you really going to speak for all scientists? I knew many who would disagree and I sure would about scientists being philosophers.
This is really easy, all scientists are philosophers (except maybe bench scientists). This is because they are engaged in rational inquiry, applying modern philosophical standards (and certain Phil assumptions) within their work. Not all philosophers are scientists because not all philosophers are investigating the same theme, nor adhere to the same methods (which is different than standards)and assumptions.
If scientists are doing something fundamentally different than philosophy, I would like to know what that is. If you mean something fundamentally different than other philosophers investigating other areas, and/or using different methods/assumptions... I'd agree.
Being a scientist I could sneak away and laugh at philosophy with you, but that would be disingenuous of me. I don't understand your argument to pull up stakes across all fields and pretend philosophical pursuit was NOT the common endeavour, just because some asses apply their minds to something I find useless.
On a side note social science is not the same thing as ethics, and neither use precisely the same methods or assumptions as physical sciences. If there is no rigor outside science, they are lost.
Similarly, while scientists were once known as "philosophers", it's now the case that they have left that field. Science is a field in its own right, not a part of philosophy.
The problem for you is that while science is its own field with its own name, its root is from philosophy and its practice is still a form philosophical inquiry. When in science I'd call myself a scientist, but that's not the same thing as NOT a philosopher, it is a TYPE of philosopher with very specific goals, methods, and assumptions.
When I discuss ethics or politics I would not call myself acting as a scientist, though engaged in the same underlying pursuit, philosophical inquiry. Do you recognize that you are NOT acting as a scientist when discussing those topics? And can't you recognize that there is a common trait between them that does not rely on methods and assumptions? The idea that I have to say, well I'm doing science now, and doing ethics now, and doing social science now, and pretend as if I don't have a word that conveys a common connection of pursuit, seems sort of silly.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 9:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 11:28 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 275 of 307 (433814)
11-12-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 9:14 PM


Re: Philosophy by example
words change in meaning, sub-fields become fields in their own right.
I agree that they do. The significance of any change is different for each change. I might call it a Hummer, but it is still a vehicle. The fact that natural philosophy became science, did not mean what scientists were doing was any less philosophical inquiry into natural phenomena... it was a specification.
Attempting to introduce doubt about the rigor of science only confirms my position on philosophy
??? Who's trying to make anyone doubt the rigor of science? I think its the best we have for inquiries into natural phenomena. I was pointing out that aspects of philosophical inquiry which you claim indicates lack of rigor, exist in science as well.
I don't buy your argument, they aren't signs of lack of rigor.
Now what you need to do is address those examples. Either admit such things are not inherent signs of lack of rigor, that they are somehow not equal to the examples you gave, or that (if you really want to keep your original argument regarding those aspects) science is not rigorous. I'm assuming you won't choose the latter.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 9:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 11:30 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 278 of 307 (433832)
11-13-2007 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 11:30 PM


Re: Show me the rigor.
Show me the rigor, H.
Okay, but this is exactly where it cuts to the definition issue, which I am arguing is the root of the problem here.
It appears, and correct me if I am wrong, that science, logic/math, social science, and ethics have rigor? This is a position I would thoroughly agree with.
That to you means... based on your definition of philosophy... that THOSE have rigor, but philosophy (which does not include those fields of study), has none. To you philosophy is essentially defined as anything that does not have rigor.
Now to me, given my definition of philosophy, I look at that list and see four fields of philosophy that are rigorous and you appear to agree have rigor. To which I then stand stumped, wondering what more proof are you asking for?
There are some additional fields like metaphysics and epistemology and aesthetics. Epistemology is essentially just logic being worked against one specific definition (knowledge) and a paradigm. Its a logical exercise. If you agree that logic is rigorous then by default epistemology should be. The largest criticism would be that initial definitions may seem silly or given current success with a working epistemology, there's no need to keep going, refining it further. That is not a question of rigor, but of time spent reviewing an issue (like working out a math problem to a decimal point that just doesn't matter).
Metaphysics is essentially throwing up possible natures of underlying reality (or versions of such) to then have an epistemology developed and used to produce answers regarding: what do we know? Now you might have problems with all the zany possibilities of metaphysics which might be offered, or WHY they are being offered. Is it necessary given success given the current paradigm? Do we have to test every possibility that can be mentioned, without any regard for previous experience? Again, that seems to be a time/resource issue and not really a question of rigor.
I suppose it is true that some philosophers decide to take on testing truth claims regarding certain metaphysics and with an epistemology so sloppy that it sort of insults most people that they expect others to listen to them. That other gullible people might actually listen, even other philosophers, does not lend credence to their activity. It is identical to ID theory in biology/chem/etc. I agree that this specific combo lacks rigor... but that is not inherent to the field, and even if it were, is small compared to the much larger number of fields which are rigorous. In no way do I have to logically accept their claims as worthwhile, valid, or true. I can make the distinction and the only thing they'd have to hold me to, if I agree to waste my time listening, is whether there is an internal consistency that IF there was reason to use their metaphysic and IF there was a reason to use their epistemological tool, that X would constitute knowledge in that specific combo paradigm.
I am still trying to figure out why you think I have to hold all combos as equal, or that valid vs true is an impossible determination.
Unless you mean absolute Truth, like pierce the veil and gain mythological deity-like understanding of what actually IS... beyond the realm of error? No I won't claim that philosophy can guarantee that kind of truth claim, but neither can science... and that is because it acknowledges its logical limits.
Then there is aesthetics. As far as I understand that has sort of died out as a pursuit, that is giving up any pretense to a fully rational study. But it did exist in philosophy as a single subject and some philosophers attempted it... not to mention artists. I'd call bullshit on most of this field, but like I said it has sort of disappeared (didn't even get mentioned at Wiki that I saw, or the dictionary). I think its adherents collapsed to either pure art criticism, which involves many admittedly subjective claims, or social science trying to understand how humans come to be attracted to things in a mechanistic fashion.
Again, I am left with a shrug. What are you expecting that I must defend as rigorous? What other pursuits are there? We agree on pretty much everything, just not whether they are defined as philosophy. If you have something to specifically attack about E or M, the only other active fields I know, so that rigor is an inherent problem of those fields, I'd like to see it.
If not we are into semantics. I am using a definition that is based on the original terminology and common usage through today. If that idea is the result of a cabal, I guess I'd like to see evidence for it. Was it the Freemasons? Heheheh.
You are using a definition which is plausible as a usage (or rather the argument to stop using the term) given the historical march of its individual fields, but I don't see that as practical or necessary. And it certainly isn't common (accepting the cabal theory, which still means its de facto uncommon). I don't understand the impetus of your desire beyond not allowing some poor philosophers, or those doing work you don't like, getting to be lumped into the same category as you? Or you have some baggage with the word philosophy... Kind of like, I may be a homosexual but I'm not gay, no way!
I'd say rest easy. They aren't doing the exact same thing as you. If you are a scientist, then you are involved in a branch of practical philosophy with so many distinguishing tenets, that you are clearly NOT doing what someone without those tenets is doing. While generically they are both philosophy, they are not the same kind of philosophy. Hence the division into fields.
And not to disturb you or anything but you know you are in the same category as them anyway... human. Even human working on something. Let it go.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 11:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:09 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 303 of 307 (434027)
11-14-2007 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 9:09 AM


Re: Show me the rigor.
I've defined "philosophy" throughout, so it's pretty disingenuous and disrespectful of you to pretend like the word I haven't. The word has been defined. Everybody knows what we're talking about.
Uhm... I said essentially defined, not trying to rewrite what you literally wrote as a definition. Perhaps I should have worded it better as... "defined as anything else... and these other things don't have rigor"?
I honestly don't see what the problem was with my characterization. You believe those fields I listed have rigor, right? Philosophy, your definition, does not include them and what is part of it is not rigorous, right?
If there is no problem with that the rest of my post flows. If there is a problem, I'd like to know what it was.
I still am left to wonder why philosophy, if its so great, can't be defended honestly.
While I personally agree with and like Archer's post I can grant you smugness issue. I didn't concentrate so much on Jon and Sub's posts (sorry guys) since A and Mod's seem to be taking up prime space. So I can't speak toward them. But I think Mod keeps hitting some strong posts at you that are not in any way disagreeable or dishonest.
As for me, you didn't answer my post because of a mistaken impression of my opening definition. Please give it a second shot if you have the time.
In quick summary: You have a list of fields of study which are rigorous. They happen to be within by definition of philosophy. Hence if you ask for proof of rigor then I'd have to present them. That you do not define philosophy such that they are NOT within it, merely means we are using two different definitions for the same word. Then I gave my reason for using the definition I do, and state I am not sure why to use yours (or believe it is the modern usage).
If your argument is that my definition still falls, despite including the list of fields you agree are rigorous, because of the other fields within it which are not... then I discussed the only three remaining fields I know of. Epistemology is just a logic game played against scenarios (similar to what people do in math and chem all the time when trying to work something out). As long as you find logic rigorous then it is rigorous. Metaphysics is pretty much just an advancement of a theory, which you then apply to an epistemology and check results (to test its validity). Again that's a logic game.
The only problem I see is not rigor, but whether you'd feel testing so many theories or so in depth is worth the time. Some specific E and M combos might result in lack of rigor for that case specifically, internally, but then that's just like ID compared to Science and it does get dismissed by most in the community.
Aesthetics is the closest to something that isn't rigorous, but it's pretty well dead and as you can see by the links doesn't even get classified as as subject anymore.
So where is the lack of rigor? I showed the rigor!!!!
Unless as Mod was asking you want rigor if rigor, by which I take it means the absolute TRUTH, beyond error? No one's handing out that kind of rigor, even science... no, ESPECIALLY not science.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-14-2007 2:30 AM Silent H has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024