Philosophy - A "real" subject??

Redleslie2

Chunk wrote:

I've heard of nihilism but it throws the rest of philosophy out the window. There really is nothing to discuss about it.

Or you mean you're not capable of discussing it? Either way, what do you want here then? Why not just go away and play your computer games and do your cartman impressions all day every day until you die?

Playboy

Chunk wrote:

You really don't think this proves you wrong?

Who are you and what am I trying to prove you wrong in? I'm guessing that you are Love's friend?

Chunk wrote:

Go learn some physics. A real subject. That discusses science in a correct way. Perhaps because it is a science. They provide proof for things.

First of all, I did physics in secondary school. Second of all, I still try to keep up to date with current physics such as Quantum Theory, String theory and I am especially interested in Dr. Mills and his new ideas on phyiscs and Hydrinos. Thirdly, I never said Philosophy was a science. Philosophy examines science in The Philosophy of Science. People such as Popper, Kuhn, Van Frassen are just some of names in the Philosophy of Science. Anyone who has any idea of physics should know who this people are and their relevance to their subject. And last if all there are many types of proof, not just scientific proof.

Chunk wrote:

You are an idiot.

I'll overlook the idiot remark because you are 17 years old and probably in first year of uni and completely ignorant to the ways of the world. A greenhorn I think is the name that come to mind.

Chunk wrote:

Everything else that you have mentioned is subjective.

So what if it is subjective .. that doesnt make it unreal. Unless all the thoughts in everyone's head are unreal.

Chunk wrote:

There is no good and bad. Unless it is how you percieve i

In your opinion.

Chunk wrote:

People exist through evolution.

That doesnt make any sense .. No one is debating evolution except maybe people like Mary Midgely and Richard Dawkins. Dawkins's evolution is highly specualtive and not science as he can not prove it. Can you prove it?

Chunk wrote:

Philosophy is outdated. It helped people delude themselves into thinking they knew how they existed. I seriously can't believe there is anyone that goes along with it.

Listen you obviously know nothing about philosophy .. I don't know what kind of twisted and ignorant ideas you have and where you are getting them from.

Chunk wrote:

Finally i would like to point out that philosophers like all of you hide behind the larger words of the vocabulary.

Why does science have a different vocabulary to every day language. When you figure that out maybe you you will figure out why philosophy uses difficult language.

Chunk wrote:

Lets be realistic here, could you not have said it all in about one sentence of normal words. Its seems to me you attempt to bore a person out of caring anymore to make it seem like you're speaking sense.

Why can't physics explain things in normal language?

Playboy

Chunk wrote:

I also would like to point out that i HATE the way people who like philosophy think people who realise it's wrong are ignorant.

People who think philosophy is wrong are people who are ignorant and don't know anything about philosophy. Lets face it m8 .. you have never picked up a book on philosophy in your life. You are friends with Love and you were showing off thinking you know everything about everything because you went to CTYI and you have a big head. Now you are caught with your pants down and you look like a fool because you are way out of your depth. So give it up m8 and stop bullsh*ting. You are fooling no one but yourself. When you know what philosophy is and if you feel like coming back here and arguing the same point then please do but please stop wasting peoples time. This isnt school and the people on this forum arent teachers.

Chunk wrote:

I have a feeling I understand it better than you. There is nothing... "Morality", "Truth", "Right and Wrong". Thats a load of crap. Humans exist. It is chemical. It makes sense. There is no deeper meaning behind it.

Your feeling would be very wrong.

Chunk wrote:

As for philosophy being logical...HA!

Have a look at the history of logic just to make yourself feel more like a fool. Oh btw HA! to you 2 :rolleyes:

Sand

Sand where does your own opinions come from?

Dont take it personally Trans but I wont go into a detailed response on this as it repeats a lot of stuff Ive already dealt with including the good ol "ignorance" charmer. Remember, the topic is whether philosophy is a real *subject*. Not an attack on the discussion of concepts and theories, though I do feel as they diverge from practical realities they can reach the stage of "Whod win in a scrap, Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck* - and why?".

*Mickey would, but only if he had a knife as I recall.

This is a ridiculous argument. What do you mean by practical? Do you mean like farming is practical or engineering is practical? Should we do away with all impractical subjects? Are you really suggesting this? If I were you I would think about this some more b4 you make a complete fool of yourself.

I cant figure out if youre deliberately misinterpreting, or simply cant follow a simple point. You say Philosophy is concerned with the impractical, so how then do you belive that it provides practical benefits? It deliberately refuses to solve problems by asking what the most useful or practical answer is, by the definition you provided. Are you claiming that the impractical survives only in Philosophy courses? If this is your position then the world is a bleak place indeed.

I am interested to know what you did study Sand. Could you please tell us because it might help us understand where you are coming from .

Nah, youd just like to go off topic and attack another course other than Philosophy. My course does not inform my views on Philosophy as a real subject.

.............. You have no idea what you are talking about and I don't have the time to keep pointing this out to you. Pick up a book!

So tell me where Socrates got his Masters from? I mean, he would never have made it as a philosopher without picking up the proper qualifications. And its a good thing they had those courses back in Athens otherwise philosophy would never have occured.

The ability to argue is something that people seem to lack.

I agree, but I dont think Philosophy teaches you it, given some of the posts on the thread. The example you give above of discussion of an idea, hinges on the phrase "reasonable and not dismissive". How does any idea, philisophical or otherwise get aired, criticised and revised without people being reasonable and not dismissive? Philosophy didnt invent constructive criticism - the definition of philosophy is far too narrow for that. Religious theologians are philosophers, but I wouldnt associate reasonable and not dismissive with religious leaders given the all too common intolerance, bigotry and often the attempt to crush dissent.

As I've stated above, ethics doesn't seek to answer this question in an absolute manner. It presents reasoned arguments but mostly it should encourage the individual to think for themselves about what the issue is.

Thats my original point - philosophy doesnt provide answers to ethical questions, so the argument made earlier in the thread that ethics came from philosophy was a vast exaggeration of its role imo.

A degree does not mean anything. It's the person holding it that gives the degree meaning. Philosophy when studied by someone genuinely interested in it can have a lot of meaning. When studied by someone who just doesn't get it, it has nearly none. But to say it doesn't belong in university? Personally, I believe that if a person wishes to dedicate time to the study of this subject then they should be encouraged. It is as meaningful, if not more, at a personal level than any other subject. And that is what counts isn't it?

I essentially agree with this. Im not attacking the idea of philosophy. I just dont accept that its a real subject in that, Engineering will for example answer the question "How do I build a bridge?", whereas if you dont know how to debate and examine your beliefs before you enter philosophy then you most likely still wont by the time you leave the other side. In that, its something we should be encouraged to do - like volunteering for charity work - but not something I feel you can give a qualification in.

Like I said sometimes it can be reasoned and justified. I just dispute the fact that all pub talk is glorious exchanges of discussion on varying topics and social issues.

Course not, but it depends on the question being asked and who youre asking, much like the benefits of a philosophy course as we agreed above.

Love

Redleslie2 wrote:

To the OP, have you discussed this topic further with your friend?

Chunk is the friend I was referring to.

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why not just go away and play your computer games and do your cartman impressions all day every day until you die?

Don't speak to my friends like that.

Playboy wrote:

I'll overlook the idiot remark because you are 17 years old and probably in first year of uni and completely ignorant to the ways of the world. A greenhorn I think is the name that come to mind.

I am 17 and in first year of college. I like to think that that doesn't make me an ignorant greenhorn. Don't use someone's age against them in an argument please, it's not relevant.

Playboy wrote:

you were showing off thinking you know everything about everything because you went to CTYI and you have a big head. Now you are caught with your pants down and you look like a fool because you are way out of your depth. So give it up m8 and stop bullsh*ting.

...


Have a look at the history of logic just to make yourself feel more like a fool. Oh btw HA! to you 2 :rolleyes:

Cop on. That's not arguing about Philosophy, that's being an assh*le to my friend. Can we stay on-topic here? I started this thread to hear other people's opinions and their reasons for them, not to start a b*tching session.

simu

RedLeslie - banned for a week for that personal attack.

Love and Playboy - quieten down, if I see any more name-calling or off topic nonsense from the two of you, you will also be banned.

-simu

nesf

So to boil down your argument Sand, Philosophy is not a "real" course because it doesn't give "answers". I can see where you are coming from on this. There is definitely a school of thought in this country, and many others, that education needs to give you answers and that education for education's sake is not a good thing. Education is a means to an end, thus our culture of manufacturing lines of qualifications, but that's a seperate issue.

Answers are not inherently part of a degree subject. Not every question has a definitive answers. You know this. I'm curious though as to what you consider an answer to be. A definitive explanation or a proposition or a decent approximation that's workable with most of the time?

Is this search for answers really a sugar coated side of the commercialisation of knowledge and education? If a degree does not train people for a job then it isn't a "real degree". I find that attitude very worrying. Yes we do need degrees that do train people for work and give them answers, but can we afford to not educate those interested in the other areas of study? I know funding distribution in many of the colleges in this country is going this way (or has gone so) but is this something to be encouraged?

What is wrong with a degree where a person simply wishes to learn? Is the idea of a degree that does not prepare you for the workplace non-sensical to you? Personally I think that such an attitude is a mockery of the idea of education.

Playboy

Sand wrote:

I cant figure out if youre deliberately misinterpreting, or simply cant follow a simple point. You say Philosophy is concerned with the impractical, so how then do you belive that it provides practical benefits? It deliberately refuses to solve problems by asking what the most useful or practical answer is, by the definition you provided. Are you claiming that the impractical survives only in Philosophy courses? If this is your position then the world is a bleak place indeed.

I can't follow your point becuase it's anything but simple. Philosophy is concerned mostly with the impractical - that is it doesnt provide definitive answers to questions. It provides practical benefits becuase through the analysis of certain topics or ideas philosophy can offer logical, clear, reasonable and justified answers. It might not be the only answer but you can usually tell which is the best. Now these anwers, though they are not definitive like science, still shape our ideas and culture. This can lead to new disciplines such as Psychology. Would you consider Psychology a practical benefit? Some more examples of the same thing:

Beginning in the seventeenth century, the natural sciences gradually separated themselves from speculative philosophy. More recently, the social sciences have declared their independence of philosophy in its prescriptive or normative dimensions. In order to establish themselves as subdivisions of science, such disciplines as economics, politics, and sociology had to eschew all normative considerations (that is, all ought questions or, as they are sometimes called, questions of value). They had to become purely descriptive, in this respect exactly like the natural sciences. They had to restrict themselves to questions of how men do, in fact, behave, individually and socially, and forego all attempts to say how they ought in principle to behave."

Sand wrote:

So tell me where Socrates got his Masters from? I mean, he would never have made it as a philosopher without picking up the proper qualifications. And its a good thing they had those courses back in Athens otherwise philosophy would never have occured.

Tell me where the first doctor or scientist got his qualification? What kind of a silly point are you trying to make. All disciplines had to start somewhere.

Sand wrote:

Thats my original point - philosophy doesnt provide answers to ethical questions, so the argument made earlier in the thread that ethics came from philosophy was a vast exaggeration of its role imo.

Look, Philosophy examines ethical issues so as clarify them, explain them, and offer reasonable arguments for and against so people can make up their mind with all the right information. Is that so hard to understand? Do you have the time as a person to fully inform yourself of all the current ethical issues so you can make a reasonable decision? Philosophers get you to consider situations and circumstances that make you question the validity of what you considered ethical. They point out the pros and cons of both sides so we the public can make informed decisions without having to spend huge amounts of time considering all the possibilities themselves.

Sand wrote:

I essentially agree with this. Im not attacking the idea of philosophy. I just dont accept that its a real subject in that, Engineering will for example answer the question "How do I build a bridge?", whereas if you dont know how to debate and examine your beliefs before you enter philosophy then you most likely still wont by the time you leave the other side. In that, its something we should be encouraged to do - like volunteering for charity work - but not something I feel you can give a qualification in.

So you equate 'real' with providing an answer to how to build a bridge? What about the reality of your mind - your thoughts, your ideas, your desires, your beliefs. Are they not real, in fact is anything more real than whats inside your own head? Philosophy is probably the most important knowledge of all. If people devoted more time to philosophy instead of building bridges then the world I can assure you would be a better place. Just do me one favour Sand. Just pick up Bertrand Russells 'A history of Western Philosophy' and read it. Then come back here and tell me that you don't think philosophy is worthy of study. The problem is you see that you are arguing from ignorance. You cant judge the merits of a subject unless you take the time to acquaint yourself with it.

DadaKopf

Could it be that Sand is a philosophical pragmatist? A philosophical position espoused by American philosophers such as William James.

Is this search for answers really a sugar coated side of the commercialisation of knowledge and education?

I think you're right to look at the context of knowledge, but ultimately, I think Sand's position is flawed because he believes that science is the one true faith. As I've said many times before - and I'm paraphrasing some great living philosophers who use scientific methodologies to develop their views - the Enlightenment resulted in splitting investigation of the world into discreet disciplines and ideologies. The exact opposite of the Enlightenment project's objective to provide total knowledge of the world and, hence, liberation.

But, Sand, for a practical example of how philosophy is important in people's lives, it's true that the theories of Jurgen Habermas, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bordieu and Paolo Friere have provided much of the world's global poor with analyses of politics and power which they have used to challenge structures that keep them poor, these philosophers' ideas and those who actively advocate them have contributed to their social, political and economic empowerment. It has provided them with the intellectual, political and practical tools to challenge the philosophies of others who exploit them.

But, Sand, you've already made up your mind, you're a lost cause so I'm not going to waste any more energy on you.

Son Goku

nesf wrote:

Hmm, this might shock you but: In France and many other European countries, Physics students take Philosophy modules in their degrees.

The two subjects mesh very well actually. One deals with modeling reality, the other with giving some meaning to what the maths says. If you study physics at a high level you do start naturally questioning and wondering about the implications of what the maths is telling you. Maths then is so intertwined with philosophy it's shocking.

To bring home nesf's point, look at the following degree offered at Oxford:
Philosophy and Physics
Philsophy and Physics details

Sand

So to boil down your argument Sand, Philosophy is not a "real" course because it doesn't give "answers".

No, more that it doesnt teach you something you dont already know. We agree that a philosophy course is of no use unless you are open minded and willinging to engage in debate in the first place. However, in the case on engineering - if you dont know how to build a bridge, youve come to the right place. Youll learn something you dont already know, which is practically the defintion of an education.

What is wrong with a degree where a person simply wishes to learn? Is the idea of a degree that does not prepare you for the workplace non-sensical to you? Personally I think that such an attitude is a mockery of the idea of education.

Nothing is wrong with simply wishing to learn. I devour history books for example. In fact I devour books of any and all types pretty much. During my study for my exams in Uni my grades were seriously threatened by wandering through the libary and picking out books on the Pelopenisian War instead of what I should have been studying. I wouldnt give myself a qualification on the basis of loving to read and learn though. If you look at the quality of some of the posts here though, people have a qualifiation - or are studying for a qualification - that is of no relevance to anything that qualification is supposed to teach them. They cant debate other than to hurl insults and are more closeminded than the Pope, anyone who challenges their view is "ignorant".

But, Sand, you've already made up your mind, you're a lost cause so I'm not going to waste any more energy on you.

Grand, I wont waste any time on you either then.

Look, Philosophy examines ethical issues so as clarify them, explain them, and offer reasonable arguments for and against so people can make up their mind with all the right information. Is that so hard to understand? Do you have the time as a person to fully inform yourself of all the current ethical issues so you can make a reasonable decision? Philosophers get you to consider situations and circumstances that make you question the validity of what you considered ethical. They point out the pros and cons of both sides so we the public can make informed decisions without having to spend huge amounts of time considering all the possibilities themselves.

The definition of philosophy you triumphantly provideded specifically denied appeals to "authority" in answering questions. So why should I give a damn if you have determined what I *should* think? Ill examine the issue and make my own mind up on whats ethical, cheers anyway.

So you equate 'real' with providing an answer to how to build a bridge?

No, I equate a "real" education with teaching someone something they dont know already. People generally dont know how to build a bridge. People generally do know how to form an opinion on a particular issue. Maybe they dont refer to the authorities you do, but then if they did it wouldnt be philosophy as you define it - would it?

If people devoted more time to philosophy instead of building bridges then the world I can assure you would be a better place.

Yeah - Right. Look at the thread here about proving God exists. Say God exists....seeing as he has no direct detectable impact on our lives, who gives a crap? Say God doesnt exist, ....who gives a crap? Spend your time teasing that out or help build bridges to open up say, the valleys of Pakistan were people are trapped without shelter. Your call on what will make the world a better place.

biko

It's been said before but philosophy is the well from which all other sciences spring.

Playboy

Sand wrote:

No, more that it doesnt teach you something you dont already know. We agree that a philosophy course is of no use unless you are open minded and willinging to engage in debate in the first place. However, in the case on engineering - if you dont know how to build a bridge, youve come to the right place. Youll learn something you dont already know, which is practically the defintion of an education.

ed·u·ca·tion (ĕj'ə-kā'shən)
n.
The act or process of educating or being educated.
The knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process.
A program of instruction of a specified kind or level: driver education; a college education.
The field of study that is concerned with the pedagogy of teaching and learning.
An instructive or enlightening experience: Her work in the inner city was a real education.

Why is a philosophy course of no use if you are open minded. Ever think that it might be able to open a closed mind. It's something that it does quite successfully. I really don't know what kind of point you are trying to make regarding engineering - are you trying to tell me that people who study philosophy don't learn anything that they dont know already? I studied philosophy as part of my degree and I can tell you that I learned more in philosophy that I think would be possible to learn in any other subject.

Sand wrote:

Nothing is wrong with simply wishing to learn. I devour history books for example. In fact I devour books of any and all types pretty much. During my study for my exams in Uni my grades were seriously threatened by wandering through the libary and picking out books on the Pelopenisian War instead of what I should have been studying. I wouldnt give myself a qualification on the basis of loving to read and learn though. If you look at the quality of some of the posts here though, people have a qualifiation - or are studying for a qualification - that is of no relevance to anything that qualification is supposed to teach them. They cant debate other than to hurl insults and are more closeminded than the Pope, anyone who challenges their view is "ignorant".

Sand do you think History is practical? Do you think History should be removed from Universities? Do you think the Knowledge about events in history such as the Pelopenisian War would not be threatend by the fact that it wasnt studied at third level any more? Do you think that it would be acceptable to lose that knowledge or to let it fade away into obscurity.

The only reason I have called you ignorant on this thread is not because I am attacking your character in some way but instead because you have displayed a complete lack of knowledge of philosophy as a subject. But you persist in coming to this board and repeating your same ignorant ideas about philosophy. I have asked you numerous times to pick up an introductory text but you havent bothered. You cant agrue the merits of a subject unless you know something about that subject. Philosophy is a vast and important subject that has had and still has a huge influence on our cluture and way of life.

Sand wrote:

Grand, I wont waste any time on you either then.

Why don't you address his point. The reason Dadkopf isnt wasting any time on you is because unlike me he knows it is a pointless exercise.

Sand wrote:

The definition of philosophy you triumphantly provideded specifically denied appeals to "authority" in answering questions. So why should I give a damn if you have determined what I *should* think? Ill examine the issue and make my own mind up on whats ethical, cheers anyway.

Did you even read my post? I'm not telling you to believe something. I'm pointing out to you what philosophers in ethics do. They don't tell you what to think - they provide you with information so you can make a more informed decision and make you consider situations that make you question the value of what you hold to be right or ethical.

Sand wrote:

No, I equate a "real" education with teaching someone something they dont know already. People generally dont know how to build a bridge. People generally do know how to form an opinion on a particular issue. Maybe they dont refer to the authorities you do, but then if they did it wouldnt be philosophy as you define it - would it?

Philosophy is much more than forming an opinion on an issue. You would know this if you bothered to do a bit of that reading you seem to like so much

nesf

Sand wrote:

No, more that it doesnt teach you something you dont already know. We agree that a philosophy course is of no use unless you are open minded and willinging to engage in debate in the first place. However, in the case on engineering - if you dont know how to build a bridge, youve come to the right place. Youll learn something you dont already know, which is practically the defintion of an education.

We are not born able to debate for instance, it is a learned skill. You might be a poor debater when you enter a philosophy degree but by exposure to it become a better one. Thus you learned something that you did not know/have before you entered college. Similarly for the ability to critique texts, use of language, semantics, vocabulary, political thought etc. Philosophy does teach you things you don't already know, or in some cases expands on knowledge you already have. I might go into civil engineering with a solid knowledge of technical drawing but in the degree that knowledge is vastly expanded and improved upon. I probably could teach myself this knowledge from home but that doesn't invalidate the degree's usefulness in this respect.

Also, education is not just about learning skills and learning facts. It also should expose you to the thinking of others and ensure you are exposed to both our past and the ideas and concepts of the past. As in physics where you see the "dead end" theories that we know aren't accurate now. You don't learn about them because they are useful in themselves but because by seeing false theories that look initially very solid you get to see the real meat of physics. Developing theories and explanations is the bread and butter of physics as a subject, you need to see both sucessful and unsucessful theories to actually develop some of the skills you need to do original work.

It is similar in philosophy. Being exposed to the older theories is very important. If you aren't then you'll never really appreciate the short-comings of the discipline. Both physics and philosophy deal with unknowns and the unknowable to some degree.

I'm sure you'd agree that just learning the commonly accepted "answer" is not enough. To be "truly educated" about the question you need not only this but also the context from which it came and the thoughts and ideas surrounding and implicit from said "answer". A degree should give you depth of knowledge not just breath. The further up the education chain you go, the more in depth you delve into the subject. For leaving it might be good enough to be able to answer "what is the answer to this question?". In third level you should be able to answer "why is the answer to this question the way it is?". By "fourth level" you should be able to answer "what does the question really mean?".

To draw an analogy with physics again. An engineering student learns the equation that gives him the answer. A physics student learns how to derive the answer "from first principles". The physics student isn't interested in the answer per sae, he's interested in the method used to get the equation to give the answer. This isn't a hard and fast rule or anything but it does sometimes come up as a difference between the two degrees.

Sand wrote:

Nothing is wrong with simply wishing to learn. I devour history books for example. In fact I devour books of any and all types pretty much. During my study for my exams in Uni my grades were seriously threatened by wandering through the libary and picking out books on the Pelopenisian War instead of what I should have been studying. I wouldnt give myself a qualification on the basis of loving to read and learn though. If you look at the quality of some of the posts here though, people have a qualifiation - or are studying for a qualification - that is of no relevance to anything that qualification is supposed to teach them. They cant debate other than to hurl insults and are more closeminded than the Pope, anyone who challenges their view is "ignorant".

I agree Sand, quite a few of the posts on this thread have been depressing. But tbh we have no idea of whether the posters are philosophy students or whether they are indicitive of the standard of students in philosophy. I definitely wouldn't use it as an example to prove your point though. This forum caters to those who have an interest in philosophy rather than just people who hold BA's or PhD's in it. Pretty much the same as the other forums on this site.

Playboy

nesf wrote:

Also, education is not just about learning skills and learning facts. It also should expose you to the thinking of others and ensure you are exposed to both our past and the ideas and concepts of the past. As in physics where you see the "dead end" theories that we know aren't accurate now. You don't learn about them because they are useful in themselves but because by seeing false theories that look initially very solid you get to see the real meat of physics. Developing theories and explanations is the bread and butter of physics as a subject, you need to see both sucessful and unsucessful theories to actually develop some of the skills you need to do original work.

What defines the success of a physics theory and what proves a physics theory false? Is it that it is a closer representation of reality than previous theories? If revolutions occur regularly in science what reason do we have for believing scientific theories to be true? Whats taken to be true now may well be taken to be false in the next one hundred years. The reason that 'dead end theories' are seen as just that is maybe because you are interpreting them from a different paradigm? Kuhn's incommensurability and paradigm theories might make you think about your view on the history of physics. Physics doesnt neccessarly develop in a linear way eliminating the false theories and building on a steady foundation of commonly held true theories. Rather science and physics develop cycles of: paradigm --> crisis ---> revolution ---> new paradigm. . According to Kuhn there is never any logically compelling reason to adopt one paradigm over another. Rival paradigms are incommensurable. When speaking to one another advocates of rival paradigms use arguments and appeal to data that only make sense from within their own paradigm. When there is a paradigm shift theoretical structures change, the methods of enquiry change, and the standards of evaluation change. Is the success of a theory enough to make it right or true? When astrophysicists conjure up invisible entities, the existence of which no one can disprove (black holes, dark matter), they open themselves to accusations of being pseudo scientists. Why are invisible gnomes in my garden any less scientifically acceptable than the concept of "black holes" that no one can see or measure? Electro magnetic field theory is an example of a successful theory that was proven to ba false.

Sorry for going off topic but I'm really interested in the philosophy of Science. New thread maybe nesf?

Son Goku

Playboy wrote:

When astrophysicists conjure up invisible entities, the existence of which no one can disprove (black holes, dark matter), they open themselves to accusations of being pseudo scientists. Why are invisible gnomes in my garden any less scientifically acceptable than the concept of "black holes" that no one can see or measure?

Initially none, but there is now observationally evidence of black holes.
Strong observational evidence of black holes.
And black holes could very easily have been disproved by observational evidence, so can Dark energy.

Physics doesnt neccessarly develop in a linear way eliminating the false theories and building on a steady foundation of commonly held true theories. Rather science and physics develop cycles of: paradigm --> crisis ---> revolution ---> new paradigm.

In reality neither of those possibilities really happen.
That cycle has never truely occured in physics.

the methods of enquiry change

No they don't, they remain the same and woe betide any scientist who attempts to do otherwise.

According to Kuhn there is never any logically compelling reason to adopt one paradigm over another. Rival paradigms are incommensurable.

Again, there are a lot of logical reasons to adopt the new paradigm.

I'm really interested in the philosophy of science as well, but quite a lot of the time it's widely off the mark, with no understanding, occasionally, of how science is done.

When speaking to one another advocates of rival paradigms use arguments and appeal to data that only make sense from within their own paradigm.

For example, the above is a rarity. A very extreme one at that.

(Anyway, yes. New topic)

simu

Yeah, philosophy of science discussion continued here.

Redleslie2

Dunno why philosophy is not seen as being practical. The Matrix movies are all based on Baudrillard's stuff and they've grossed what, nearly two billion dollars or something. Can't get much more practical than loads of cash.

Might as well argue that business studies are useless because students don't learn how to make bridges or robots.