On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

So now we know what your opinion is, so what.Would you like to elaborate on your opinion to the point one would have a reason to actually give a damn what you think?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

So does it follow:If everything can be subject to the four fundamental forces of physics, then there's no such thing as fundamental forces in physics.If everything can be made of chemical elements, then there's no such thing as chemical elements.If every statement can be subject to logical analysis, then there's no such thing as logical analysis.If every skyscraper can have a foundation, then there's no such thing as skyscraper foundations.This 'sophistry' business is fun. I especially find the last two statements pertinent to the discussion.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

WTF Crash? you find no intellectual merit in economics too? Like microeconomics, engineering economics, business forecasting, banking?Do you have a problem with the intellectual merit of computing compound interest?Far out.Maybe you should take some classes before dismissing whole fields of human endeavor.Dismissing philosophy and theology is bad enough, if nothing else it is necessary to have some minimal understanding of both to fully comprehend various events in history.But economics too! You and those YECs are the only people here who apparently argue for ignorance.Edited by anglagard, : add one of those philosophic qualifiers.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I guess that depends upon one's definition of every, and everything.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I think you would find it difficult to argue that the entire field of economics contributes nothing before governments or businesses that hire economists.Besides don't physicists still have that particle and wave dichotomy in quantum theory? Maybe it is an admixture of supply and demand, not either supply or demand.Also don't a lot of fields debate certain basic principles? Like biology concerning abiogenesis? Does that also mean that since biology can't explain how life began, it lacks 'rigor' and 'therefore contributes nothing to human knowledge?' No, I'm thinking of history which is the study of the past largely via primary source materials like writing. How does one have a full appreciation of what happened during the Reformation with absolutely no knowledge of theology or philosophy. I disagree, sometimes having basic familiarity with what does not work, what is wrong, what is false, is important to human knowledge as well as what does work.That being said, I basically agree with the idea that physical science has more evidence for it's current conclusions than less quantitative and more qualitative fields such as the social sciences. What I don't agree with is a statement that equates the concept of 'rigor' with 'value.' The humanities, such as history, literature, the arts, and even philosophy and theology generally lack both quantitative and qualitative empirical evidence for their conclusions. It does not automatically follow that the humanities or social sciences such as economics, political science, psychology, sociology or anthropology - due to their greater reliance on qualitative data - "contribute nothing to human knowledge." Are you saying that I, or anyone else, must be psychotic to disagree with you? Are you claiming to be the final arbiter to all others of what is valuable and what is real?One value that is best learned through familiarity with the humanities is humility. But one would have a difficult time apprehending that concept if they hold that all humanities, indeed even the social sciences, "contribute nothing to human knowledge."

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

In my previous post, I assumed that I basically knew what you meant by 'rigor.' The assumption is based upon the relative application of quantitative vs. qualitative vs. deduced assertions of fact.It occurs to me that my assumption may be incorrect.Now you also stated in regard to the concept of 'rigor' that certain fields such as philosophy, theology, and economics lack rigor and therefore "contribute nothing to human knowledge."So, I am curious, which of the following fields of study have rigor and therefore contribute to human knowledge and which do not have rigor and therefore do not contribute to human knowledge.I will use the hierarchy commonly used in most public universities to go from the most rigorous to the least, otherwise known as the 'pecking order.'I will fill in the blanks based upon previous posts.Mathematics - YesPhysical Sciences
1. Physics - Yes
2. Chemistry - Yes
3. Geology - ?
4. Computer Science - ?Biological Sciences - ?Social Sciences
Economics - No
Anthropology - ?
Political Science - ?
Psychology - ?
Sociology - ?Humanities
History - ?
Literature - ?
Philosophy - No
Theology - NoThe Arts
Music - ?
Art - ?
Theater - ?Trades - ?Also, which of the following professions, which do not have a single overriding theoretical construct but rather depend upon what is known as 'best practices' from several fields would you consider as rigorous and which not, AKA, which contribute to human knowledge and which do not?Medicine - ?
Law - ?
Engineering - ?
Business - ?
Education - ?Please answer this test so we can know which fields contribute to knowledge.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

OK, so would you be willing to say 'rigor' is empirical verifiability? I am keeping up with this thread, I just disagree with your apparent supposition that only the natural sciences, along with some select social sciences, contribute to human knowledge. I believe virtually all fields of human inquiry and endeavor, including basket weaving, contribute to human knowledge. After all, knowledge of a better way to weave a basket is a contribution to human knowledge. I based those answers on your own previous responses. Are you now denying that chemistry and physics 'contribute to human knowledge' while supporting theology and philosophy do 'contribute to human knowledge?' Are you denying your own assertions? We have a history of mutual antagonism don't we? I notice you are quite emotional for someone who supposedly holds logic and empiricism in greater regard than all who believe your defenses of certain prepositions lack 'rigor.' Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

OK, fair enough, you have strongly implied that this was your definition, just wanted to be sure.You do realize that the professions such as medicine, law, engineering, business, education, etc. often have competing foundational models from multiple fields. That the decisions made by practitioners of the professions are often influenced by governmental and economic pressures. In other words, that essentially false models have been and can still be indistinguishable from true models given the more complex nature of decision making in the professions relative to the sciences. The professions often use best practices, the study of successes and mistakes, regardless of the prevailing theories in any given field.Therefore according to your dogma concerning your definition of rigor and value, the professions of medicine, law, engineering, business, education, etc. "contribute nothing to human knowledge." I meant hand-made, not mass produced. Well lets try sculpture or painting (not house painting, but rather painting on a canvas as in art), how about music?You have already stated that history is a subset of anthropology and handicrafts, such as I meant in the basket weaving example, are a subset of engineering. Why are the classes in history not under the anthropology department nor classes in crafts not under an engineering department in universities? Why do both the LC and Dewey system in libraries consider anthropology and history separate subjects or handicrafts and engineering separate subjects?Is it safe to presume that you will now argue that all universities and all libraries are wrong in how they classify and distribute knowledge? It is clear to me that those defending philosophy as a worthwhile pursuit are doing so because they feel it is important to examine the assumptions one makes in learning any branch of knowledge. I don't really see anyone arguing that it is everything or that it is impossible to learn how to weave baskets without a firm grounding in neo-Platonism.Besides logic and ethics are a part of philosophy, in dictionary definitions, in wikipedia, in university departments, and in the LC and Dewey system. What is your objection to people learning about ethics or logic? If anything, I think everyone should learn more about ethics and logic.Of course you object to economics as well, a topic of another thread and a rant no known university, business, or government leader would agree with. I find it strange that virtually all people in higher education consider economics to be the most rigorous field in the social sciences largely due to its relatively greater reliance upon quantitative, rather than qualitative data. What happened to you to cause this strange hatred of economics? Did you get a D? If that is what you insist, then that is the reality we must all live under. You are the only one arguing that all three of the entire fields of economics, philosophy, and theology "contribute nothing to human knowledge." IMHO it should be nominated for FSTDT Edited by anglagard, : a bit more on what a profession means.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

So you are putting forward "quite the opposite" - that conclusions flowing logically from their premises are a criterion of falsehood?It makes me wonder about some things on your part concerning plain statements in English as well.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

In philosophy and higher mathematics, thats why I know the difference between P and ~P.Edited by anglagard, : take out ad hominem

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza