-
Features
What useful stuff has philosophy accomplished for man-kind?
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Togo said, as you know very well, that at "his old lab", scientists consulted philosophers when setting up experiments or analyzing results. That's not speculation. It's reporting a fact and it's concise and clear enough for the purpose of this thread. To now qualify Togo's point as "speculation" as you just did is one very idiotic statement!
Just another one of your many category errors I guess.
A fair and intelligent poster would either accept the truth of Togo's statement or question it openly. This poster would then have to prove his own claim and probably would have to contact Togo's old lab or something like that. You're not going to want to do that ever of course so instead to sneak in this lamentable comment that "all we have is speculation". You should just be ashamed of yourself and go bury your head in the mud where it belong.
EB
Just another one of your many category errors I guess.
A fair and intelligent poster would either accept the truth of Togo's statement or question it openly. This poster would then have to prove his own claim and probably would have to contact Togo's old lab or something like that. You're not going to want to do that ever of course so instead to sneak in this lamentable comment that "all we have is speculation". You should just be ashamed of yourself and go bury your head in the mud where it belong.
EB
fast
Contributor
If I wanted to produce accurate scientific results, I'd want to consult a scientist, but if I wanted to accurately interpret those scientific results, I'd want to consult an analytic philosopher.
DBT
Contributor
That's reasonable. But it probably also depends on the nature of the required interpretation. Philosophy may be better equipped to evaluate the moral and ethical issues related to an experiment or its results, but not the purely scientific information, physical relationships, etc, of the experiment or the results.
Scientists can be quite busy and would need to consult philosophers in order to delegate out some tasks they can't take the time for themselves. For instance, if a scientist is curious about how much lint is in his bellybutton, he can hire a philosopher to sit there and gaze at his navel while he gets some work done.
Why are ordinary men opposed to philosophy? This is the answer. Whatever is beyond our perception and above our understanding we negate, we declare that it either does not exist or it is not worth considering. We negate this to relieve ourselves of an unbearable consciousness of incompetency and inferiority; this consciousness strikes at the essence of our being and is unbearable. To admit that there is a thing which exists and which is worth knowing, and yet not be able to know and understand it, is to admit that he is incompetent and inferior to other men who do know and understand this thing. Hence, he persuades himself that either the thing does not exist or that it is not worth knowing. Now, ordinary men have not yet developed to such degree of explicit reason to understand philosophy, to reflect philosophically on existence. Philosophy is the language of explicit reason. Since ordinary men cannot understand philosophy, they negate philosophy; they persuade themselves that philosophy is only a vain speculation, and it is not worth bothering about.--A true monistic philosophy, v. 1 / Harry Waton, p. 277-278.
Valjean
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,349
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Basic Beliefs
- Vedanta. Many worlds physics, Environmentalism, Socialism.
Year of Revolutions -- 1848.
French Revolution.
American Revolution.
Russian Revolution.
&al...
French Revolution.
American Revolution.
Russian Revolution.
&al...
fast
Contributor
Sorry, it seemed so obvious that I didn't realise you expected a reply. Yes, indeed, interpretation of the results is where it gets complicated. Particularly in sciences such a psychology, where theories change and adapt often, new discoveries occur all the time, and the number and design complexity of the different measurements being made may be extremely high, and there is a serious risk of misinterpreting the results, and coming to a conclusion that isn't warranted, or doesn't logically follow from the observations.
It's also worth looking at it from the lab's point of view. If you're sinking two years time of a research team, the maintenance of 30-40 stimulus neutral rats, a brain lesion unit, lab space and associated computer time, into a study in a fast-moving field, you want results. You don't want your study to sink because of maths errors, or errors of reasoning, that could have easily been fixed.
Similarly, if you're drawing conclusions that are interesting to the philosophy of the area, such as brain and behaviour and it's implications for theories of mind, it's far better to get criticism, constructive or otherwise, before you publish rather than after, when you can still do something about it.
Because you kept on trying to get me to 'justify my case'. I hadn't advanced a case, and the facts in question were not an arguement on my part. I wanted to draw a clear and unsubtle distinction between the facts as reported, and the speculation you were demanding that I perform on your behalf.
When you then tried to dismiss everything on the basis of the use of the word 'speculation' in a reply, that appeared to confirm exactly the blurring of the boundary that I was trying to avoid.
Hence Speakpigeon's comments, which mirrored the same impressions I was getting of your posts. If that's not an accurate reflection of your intentions, then you need to be more clear.
No, it doesn't. And you've had to add 'essentially' in there precisely because it doesn't.
They shouldn't need mathematicians either. Yet cooperation is even more common there than with philosophy.
My understanding is that, in some areas, the mathematics of the results gets complicated, and the scientists needs the help of a specialist. And that in other areas, the logic connecting the results with the theories and design assumptions gets complicated, and it's worthwhile working with a specialist.
Why should this be the cause of such distress? It seems like a perfectly straightforward step to take.
For broadly the same reason that the highly religious oppose science, or that anyone opposes something that challenges their worldview. They have something that explains the universe to their satisfaction, so anyone seeking understanding beyond those bounds are not just strange, but morally suspicious, maybe even dishonest or deceiving in some way. It's why so many discussions of politics turn vicious, and why there is such hatred of philosophy from those who don't really understand it. They just see something that conflicts with their own ideas, and is less worthy in their eyes, and thus must represent a debased form of knowledge. All that remains is to pin down some example of their suspicions, to confirm what they already believe.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
RE: Logic
I find it difficult to accept self evident truth is an advance from empirical confirmation. Egyptians IMHO got it right. Greeks apparently wanted to form discussion groups.
IOW Greeks took a step backward With syllogistic logic
I find it difficult to accept self evident truth is an advance from empirical confirmation. Egyptians IMHO got it right. Greeks apparently wanted to form discussion groups.
IOW Greeks took a step backward With syllogistic logic
fast
Contributor
Thank you
DBT
Contributor
I tried to get an idea of what you were talking about when you said your Uni science department consults with philosophers in regard to the experiments and/or results. That is your case.
To date, the claim you made is in effect your case for the need for scientists to consult with philosophers.
I wanted to see more. I wanted you to expand on your claim by describing the nuts and bolts of this consultation between scientists and philosophers in relation to scientific research.
No. I didn't ''dismiss everything'' - I specifically replied to your response. Which, may I remind you, was: ''As I'm not a university science department, or an experimental laboratory, I'm not really in a position to give a definitive answer. 'I can speculate about why they feel the need to do so (and have done so), but then so could you.'' (Togo)
As you can see, it was you who made the comment about speculation.
Speakpigeon was wrong for the reason I've pointed out several times now. Again, my response was directed at your comment: '' I'm not really in a position to give a definitive answer'' ''I can speculate about why they feel the need to do so...''
Well, yes it does. It does because you cannot logically have it both ways.
Either you 'can only speculate' or you in fact know. If you know what the consolation is about, you have no need to speculate. If you need to speculate because - ''I'm not a university science department, or an experimental laboratory, I'm not really in a position to give a definitive answer. 'I can speculate about why they feel the need to do so'' - then you in fact do not have the answer. Having to speculate, you in fact do not know.
A poor analogy. Math is an integral part of science, math proficiency is a requirement for getting a science degree. As some are better at maths than others, it makes sense to collaborate with specialists. Philosophy is another matter. Your example is not a good comparison.
So I ask the question again: what precisely is the need for scientists to consult with philosopher in relation to to scientific experiments and results?
Who's claiming that?
The classic position, as advanced by Hegel, is that rationalism and empiricism are needed to support each other. One produces synthetic propositions about the world, and one produces analytic propositions about the relationship between such propositions. Independently, they're.. well not exactly useless - you can still pile up raw observations or amass analyses of the relationships between common concepts, but they don't get you anywhere until they are combined in some way.
Oh? Which period?
You've had to add the words 'in effect' precisely because I didn't claim anything about a need.
At my university, philosophy is also a requirement for getting many kinds of science degree. It's also part of the maths curriculum.
You're saying everyone is equally good at philosophy? Or is it just another matter because you say it is?
barbos
Contributor
Philosophy is about asking questions which you have no hope of answering.
I have never heard about scientists consulting with philosophers about experiments.
And I don't really understand this mixing philosophy with statistics, they have nothing in common.
Physicists are usually good enough to do statistics themselves.
Chemists don't really use statistics that much I think. Biologists are usually too ignorant to realize that they need help
Physicists have natural hatred for pure philosophers. All philosophical questions in physics originate deep in physics itself and trying to get help from pure philosopher would require making him a physicist.
As for the rest of sciences they rarely have anything to do with philosophy.
I have never heard about scientists consulting with philosophers about experiments.
And I don't really understand this mixing philosophy with statistics, they have nothing in common.
Physicists are usually good enough to do statistics themselves.
Chemists don't really use statistics that much I think. Biologists are usually too ignorant to realize that they need help
Physicists have natural hatred for pure philosophers. All philosophical questions in physics originate deep in physics itself and trying to get help from pure philosopher would require making him a physicist.
As for the rest of sciences they rarely have anything to do with philosophy.
Ah.. reinforcements.
Can you give an example?
Philosophy is similar to maths in this regard. Neither provide answers in themselves, they merely provide tools to arrive at an answer. If you plug your numbers into a mathematical formula, you will get an answer, but maths isn't about that answer - it's about the formulae. Similarly, philosophy can tell you what will be the consequence of certain assumptions or knowns. So if you plug your assumptions or knowns in, you'll end up with consequential conclusions that follow from those. It doesn't give you the answer, and it's not about giving the answer.
Don't mean to push, just trying to work out if you're reporting something that's been demonstrated, or simply expressing a point a view?
Can you give an example?
Philosophy is similar to maths in this regard. Neither provide answers in themselves, they merely provide tools to arrive at an answer. If you plug your numbers into a mathematical formula, you will get an answer, but maths isn't about that answer - it's about the formulae. Similarly, philosophy can tell you what will be the consequence of certain assumptions or knowns. So if you plug your assumptions or knowns in, you'll end up with consequential conclusions that follow from those. It doesn't give you the answer, and it's not about giving the answer.
If you say so. I'm not familiar with many philosophical questions within physics. Can you give an example?
Have you checked how rare it is? Do you have a source?
Don't mean to push, just trying to work out if you're reporting something that's been demonstrated, or simply expressing a point a view?
barbos
Contributor
Unlike you I can. here is one "What is the meaning of life?"
Unlike you I can. here are a few:
Do we live in a simulation?
Anthropic principle, what's up with that?
Many World Interpretation, what's up with that?
The thing is, physics is the only one truly fundamental field of science, the rest are pretty much applied physics (no offense implied). And philosophy was natural part of physics, problem started when they decided to split and specialize in philosophy alone. Turned out they can't really generate any new questions by themselves and go endlessly with old questions, which is not bad and interesting from historical point of view when you look at their musing about past philosophers/scientists. But that's merely history.
Same question back to you.
DBT
Contributor
Philosophy is about asking questions which you have no hope of answering.
I have never heard about scientists consulting with philosophers about experiments.
And I don't really understand this mixing philosophy with statistics, they have nothing in common.
Physicists are usually good enough to do statistics themselves.
Chemists don't really use statistics that much I think. Biologists are usually too ignorant to realize that they need help
Physicists have natural hatred for pure philosophers. All philosophical questions in physics originate deep in physics itself and trying to get help from pure philosopher would require making him a physicist.
As for the rest of sciences they rarely have anything to do with philosophy.
I've never heard that scientists consult with philosophers in relation to their scientific experiments and/or results. I've done several searches but haven't found anything definitive. Just the opposite in fact. That scientists go about their business with no help from philosophers.
The general consensus being:
''Do most scientists ignore the philosophy of science? I don't think so. They don't ignore it. Rather, they get just enough to satisfy themselves and then get on with physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, or whatever. After all, that's what makes them scientists and not philosophers--they work on different problems. If they spent all their time on the philosophy of science there would be no time left for the actual science, so they touch on it and move on.
Some scientists do ignore the philosophy of science. Some unwittingly hold rather naive assumptions about contentious philosophical issues. Other scientists are disturbed by the apparent undecidability of philosophy, and simply wish to not overly trouble themselves with themselves with its problems. But most, I think, understand about as much philosophy of science as they want or need to do their job.''
Last edited:
barbos
Contributor
DBT, I agree.
DBT
Contributor
In fact you have not only implied a need, but stated it:
''As I said, it was a common practice. Say a researcher is faced with some unusual results, and has a mass of measurements. He brings in a statistician to work out what is and isn't a genuinely statistically significant result as opposed to the result of noise. And he brings in a philosopher to have a look at his data, and make sure that the points he's seeing line up in a straight line actually mean something from the point of view of his original design assumptions, and to check the claims he's making on the back of it.
''You only need to do this kind of thing if the relationship between your data and what you're trying to demonstrate is complicated. '' - Togo; post #15
Sure, you are talking about 'statisticians' as your example for the need to consult, but you clearly include philosophers in your example, and state the reasons.
You've done this in several replied, the most recent was the need to consult with mathematicians.
You are clearly trying to establish need, but when questioned, deny it.
Sure, but that is not what I'm questionig, nor is it the same thing as your initial claim, the need for consultation, whether implied or stated; ''And he [a scientist] brings in a philosopher to have a look at his data, and make sure that the points he's seeing line up in a straight line actually mean something from the point of view of his original design assumptions, and to check the claims he's making on the back of it.''
The latter set of claim are an example of what I have been questioning;
1- ''A scientist brings in a philosopher to have a look at his data.''
2- ''to make sure that the points he's seeing line up in a straight line actually mean something from the point of view of his original design assumptions''
3 - ''and to check the claims he's making on the back of it.''
You claim that this is a common practice at your University, and you have stated that there is a ''need to do this kind of thing if the relationship between your data and what you're trying to demonstrate is complicated. ''
No, I am questioning your claim that there is a need for scientists to consult with philosophers in relation to scientific data, ie, that ''the points he's seeing line up in a straight line actually mean something from the point of view of his original design assumptions'' and that this is indeed normal practice for scientists. It may be in your Uni, but is it just your University's policy or general practice?
Achwienichtig
Member
I my experience, philosophy is less of a subject area and more of a certain way of thinking. it is primarily about being honest with oneself and shedding one's own blindness. Insofar as philosophers are consulted for anything, I tend to think it is for their objectivity and mental acuity, and not for their expertise. Insofar as professional philosophers are not consulted, it is my hope that this is because the spirit of philosophy lives in others and not just in professional philosophers.
Scientist do not need professional philosophers. If scientist needed philosophers, this would suggest 1) that scientist need philosophy, and 2) that only professional philosophers can offer them philosophy. We can accept premise 1 without accepting premise 2.
Scientist do not need professional philosophers. If scientist needed philosophers, this would suggest 1) that scientist need philosophy, and 2) that only professional philosophers can offer them philosophy. We can accept premise 1 without accepting premise 2.