On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

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

Sounds like the fallacy of the looming caveat. "Except for all the fields of philosophy where they're discussed all the time, they're rarely discussed." Huh?You're simply engaging in the reasoning that I've already proved is invalid. You're tucking all the unfortunate stuff into "that" philosophy - "oh, that's not the philosophy I do" - and trying to misdirect my attention, hoping I won't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. That Plato and Aristotle are highly regarded as philosophers? Surely you jest. There's nothing of a caricature about it, it can't be denied - these two men, who hold mutually exclusive viewpoints, are both regarded as key figures in the field of philosophy. Kant once described all of philosophy as "footnotes to Plato", and you're going to sit here and tell me that Plato isn't a critical figure in philosophy?Please. You seem to have ignored mine. Despite his stature, Einstein's theories were discarded because they couldn't pass rigor. Because science operates with rigor.That's not how it works in philosophy, where a philosopher's stature can buoy bad reasoning by fiat. Because there's no rigor. It clearly wasn't criticized until non-philosophers got their hands on it, and then journalists discovered he had been taken advantage of. In the meantime, because philosophy is a field with no rigor, no review, Flew's imprimatur was enough to get bad arguments to be accepted long enough to be published. 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.As I said in 147:

quote:

---

What does it matter what university department teaches logic? My wife just completed her masters degree at one of the top universities in the Midwest, and her entomology department was in the plant science division, and I'm pretty sure insects aren't plants.

​

Perhaps you disagree?

---

And in 65:

quote:

---

How strange it must be to be a philosopher walking down the street, seeing people - the baker, the bricklayer, the typesetter - engaged in activities that philosophers have been told they made possible. What a sense of one's own importance one must have when one believes that the entire scope of human endeavor owes its existence to one's graduate thesis!

​

How preening and arrogant.

---

It's not a definition, it's an observation. Certainly you'd like to define philosophy in such a way that everything undesirable and embarrassing is conveniently excluded. I'm simply observing philosophy as a whole, as it is practiced.Yours is the game that we're not going to play, H. The game where "philosophy" is so conveniently redefined as to exclude everything that you find embarrassing about it. Redefined to conceal its complete lack of rigor. I believe that I specifically said that in a previous post, which you would know if you had ever read any of them.Again I'm astounded by how you think, apparently, that it's completely legitimate to just roll in here and ignore more than 200 posts on this subject. The simple truth is that you have yet to present an argument that I hadn't already dealt with in this thread. Why is that? Why can't you be bothered to see what has already been said on this issue?Nonetheless, I rebutted this already. Scientists used to be called "natural philosophers" because, once, that's how the word was used, to describe anybody that was a thinker.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.People like you, in other words. People who would rather traverse the same well-traveled ground, offer up the same tired, empty sophistry, than address the rebuttals that have occurred in the past 270 posts. It's not me. It's the people in those fields. 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." Mathematicians don't think of themselves as philosophers, and they often grimace when philosophers attempt to use proofs in mathematical logic to defend their sophistry. (I'm sure my mention of Godel a couple of posts back has earned me no love from the math guys.)Of course, philosophers ignore all that. What is a scientist's own understanding of science compared to [i]the philosopher's?philosopher says that science is his doing, that all of human endeavor owes everything to the philosophers, and how lucky we all are that they should descend from on high to impart their wise and noble truths to us, why, who on Earth are the rest of us great unwashed rubes to dare question him? I was born in my parent's house, but I don't live there now. 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.

"I refute it thus." That's the methodology. The rest is an irrelevancy. The history is irrelevant; words change in meaning, sub-fields become fields in their own right. This was addressed before you showed up. Attempting to introduce doubt about the rigor of science only confirms my position on philosophy - it can't distinguish between true models and false ones. The failure of philosophy to be able to confirm the veracity of the scientific method is the failure of philosophy, not science; it is philosophy's greatest failure in its lifetime. And it's further proof that there's no rigor in philosophy.If there were rigor, H, you would have been able to show it by know. Anybody would have. Why is that point continually ignored by your side? Mod took his best shot so he's the exception, but finally he had to admit that there was no rigor in philosophy, too.

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. 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. 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? 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. 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

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. ??? 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

I'm not, I'm honestly not. I'm trying to explain how you keep bringing up issues we've already addressed.The big issue, of course, has not been addressed by your side. I proclaim philosophy to be a field that has no rigor.If you disagree, then show me the rigor.

Show me the rigor, H. (I feel like Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry McGuire.)

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

So, then, how long are you going to sit here before going to ask for your money back? Sounds like you got pretty heavily screwed.

quote:

---

Jon's College's Course Catalogue says....:

​

CORE 4: PHIL 194 - Critical Reasoning (3 credits)
...
Reasoning about human values, human knowledge and our place in the scheme of things. Conceptual analysis, identifying and analyzing arguments, and recognizing fallacious reasoning.

---

Are you sure they were two of the top ones? Just because they're listed as 1 & 2 doesn't mean the education they give you is anything worth a damn .Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]

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.If all you have to add to the discussion is the same dishonesty and misrepresentation that Jon, Subbie, AO, and the rest were bringing to the table, color me not impressed. With only about 20 posts left in the thread anyway that's simply not something I want to be a part of.Thanks for giving it a try, though. I still am left to wonder why philosophy, if its so great, can't be defended honestly.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I wonder why you're unable to defend philosophy with anything but personal attacks, Jon.Is that because there's nothing there to defend, perhaps?

That's quite the contrary to my position. Just to avoid confusion I tried to sum it up in Message 261, where I said:

quote:

---

Rigour has been defined as the ability to tell true things from false things. Epistemology is the study of how we can tell true things from false things. If you pick one epistemology and stick to it in your philosophical discussions...you have rigour.

---

I did concede there is no meta-rigour, no rigour of rigours. There is a consensus opinion regarding the best epistemology, with some quibbles over details, as per normal. There are some people that reject the consensus and go off into some radical scepticism dream world. Like with science, most philosophers ignore this - some argue against it. Like with science the cranks can always find someone who will publish (even if it is themselves).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But that's the same thing, since rigor is a universal property.Perhaps you didn't see the argument I was forced to make in another thread. If you define a property as "all-red", where a set is "all-red" if all of its members are red, then the union of a set that has the property "all-red" with a set that has the opposite property "not-all-red" cannot have the property "all-red", because some of its members are not red.It doesn't matter that you can look at one or another subset of the set and say "well, look, this sub-set is 'all-red'"; that's still not reason to conclude that the set is "all-red".You're trying to use what rigor may exist in a subset of philosophy to conclude that philosophy has rigor, but that's fallacious. Philosophy lacks rigor because it includes subsets that lack rigor as well as subsets that have rigor. But taken as a whole, since rigor is a universal property, philosophy lacks rigor because it includes subsets that lack rigor.To admit that rigor is not a universal requirement across philosophy is to admit that philosophy does not have rigor. I thought we were clear on that which is why I'm surprised to see you going back on what we agreed on. I've seen absolutely no evidence that it's even possible to be a "crank philosopher", except in the sense that all philosophers are equally crank-ish as they engage in philosophy. Philosophical models are not rejected by anybody because they're wrong; they're rejected when they contradict the individual's personal ideology.It's the same with theology and economics. People don't reject theological arguments because they're wrong, or the evidence contradicts them; they reject them because the argument contradicts their religion. Similarly, there are no economic models that are supported by evidence; they're all supported because of their consistency with the position of a major political party.

I saw it, but it doesn't apply. You have defined rigour as, essentially picking one field of epistemology and sticking to it rigorously. Rigour, by it's very nature then, cannot apply to picking one field of epistemology. There is a consensus on the best epistemology to rigorously stick to, and its the epistemology you and I agree with. Subsets that don't conform to our epistemology, and thus you would conclude they aren't rigorous since you are hung up on the idea that it is only by clinging to the epistemology of your choice can rigour exist. I think that as long as you stick to your epistemology you are being rigorous (as I understand you to mean when you define the term), even if I think you are otherwise in error.A philosopher may divert from being rigorous, and his works are criticized, they lose what support they may have and the argument is confined to history. Sometimes, bad ideas stick around, no matter how many times they are adequately refuted. This is true in science too, but that doesn't mean it isn't a rigorous pursuit. Anyone in science that diverts from rigour is criticized and the ideas are confined to history, but sometimes bad ideas stick around no matter the refutations thrown at them. No - it is not admitted, I am trying to say that the first sentence quoted is essentially meaningless. Rigour is something that is defined within a philosophy, not without. Rigour is as much a requirement in philosophy as it is science. It is not compulsory, but if you aren't rigorous you will be criticized and your work rejected.The big difference is that natural philosophy enjoys the luxury of having a subject matter that is deterministic (basically),logical and often it is observable, so it is much easier to tell a true model from a false one. This isn't so easy if you are talking about morality, for instance - however you can tell if a moral system is inconsistent or contradictory and thus reject it. People who try and apply dualism to philosophy of the mind are generally dismissed - whether 'crank' is used specifically I can't say, but the idea of a Cartesian theatre of the mind is generally derided.

Well, no, that's not at all how I defined it.Look, Mod, you're making it a lot more complicated that it needs to be, and I suspect it's so that you can misrepresent my position and grapple with a strawman.Rigor is when you can reliably distinguish between truth and fiction. A field that can't do that has no rigor. A field that doesn't distinguish between rigor and no rigor also has no rigor, by the grouping principle I outlined above.If philosophy combines fields, some with rigor and some not, and the conclusions from all fields are held in essentially equal esteem (which they are), that indicates the lack of rigor in philosophy.It's not a complicated argument, Mod, which is why I continue to be surprised that it's at all contentious. If you combine a set that lacks a universal property with one that has the universal property, the resulting union of sets lacks the universal property.It's like pissing in soup. Any amount of piss in the soup, and it's not soup any more, because to serve a bowl of soup is to serve a bowl that doesn't have any piss in it.When philosophy ejects and marginalizes everyone who wants to piss in the soup, then philosophy might gain some rigor for it. But as long as bad ideas in philosophy continue to be enshrined, philosophy has no rigor. That's just the same "everything is philosophy" nonsense. I don't see a single reason to give this argumentation any consideration. Except, of course, for the fact that Cartesian duality of the self is a feature of every Western religion, as well as a widely-held position in neurology, as well as supported by highly-regarded philosophers such as Thomas Nagel, Frank Jackson (a Distinguished Professor at Australian National University), and David Chalmers.When James Watson most recently made unsupportable racist comments - and was derided - his professional engagements almost instantly evaporated, and his prestigious position at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory was suspended that week. Hwang Woo-Suk will never work in a laboratory again, not even to sweep the floor.On the other hand, Nagel, Jackson, and Chalmers all continue to hold prestigious positions at their individual institutions, a surprising situation if, indeed, these figures are being "derided" professionally for their arguments for dualism.So, once again, we see that assertions of philosophers enforcing rigor in their field simply don't hold up to the facts.