• tim wood
    8.7k
    Let philosophizing be understood here as the attempt to reason and think in an organized way about the thinking and reasoning about a determinate subject matter. This somewhat tortuous definition to distinguish philosophizing from the immediate reasoning and thinking about a particular subject matter that is usually called science. That is, science and philosophy - whatever their relationship may have been - have been for some time two different animals.

    Hearsay - the word is actually pretty descriptive of what it is - is repeating something you have heard. Hearsay itself is not evidence. Citing good authority is not hearsay, because ultimately based in evidence.

    What is evidence? That's not so simple. Tentatively, let evidence be understood here as arguments in the broadest sense of the term - again, not hearsay - that can themselves be verified, that support the conclusion or argument in question, and are stronger or at least as strong as that argument/conclusion. I'll accept refinement or adjustment. The idea, though, is that there is such a thing as evidence as defined here, or if not, then all is nonsense.

    There appear to be two broad classes or types of arguments, those from the natural world, and those from the "world" of ideas, or mind. So-called hard science at one end of the spectrum, theology at the other. I am inclined to think that morality, mathematics, and logic find their respective bases in the natural world. And some topics may mix, but in those cases resolvable into their evidential and speculative parts.

    At the theology end of the spectrum, there appears to be zero evidence. It's all hearsay. The only way to philosophize, then, about theology, is to consider it, and all determinate subjects that have no evidential base, as ideas and speculation about ideas. And the only way to ground any such discussion is as a hypothetical. That is, if such-and-such be the case, then the consequences that follow are these-and-those. But such an argument itself never escapes the hypothetical, unless and until it be given an evidential base. And there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such philosophizing on such speculative topics.

    What is a terrible and destructive mistake, however, is to suppose that a speculative philosophizing based on hearsay somehow comes to be considered or claimed to be evidential in discussion. The least of the mistake is that those making the mistake not only do not know what they are talking about - or even thinking - but that the mistake cuts thinking off from language and concepts that could indeed be evidentially based. For example, an insistence on the supernatural cuts off at the knees any consideration of an alternative natural account.

    The idea here is that this mistake is repeated again, and again, and again here. The mistake is destructive of sense and reason.

    A solution arises out of consideration of the characteristics of the argument. If it's evidential, then subject to criticism on its grounds and in its reason. Perhaps, that is, the facts are wrong or the argument is wrong. But it's also subject to verification.

    A speculative argument based in hearsay on the other hand can never be wrong because it is based on hearsay in a hypothetical. All most of us can do, then, is ask for evidence. The failure to respond to requests for evidence or provide good evidence, in my opinion, identifies the argument as non-evidential. Whether any such argument or discussion has any merit at all, is entirely a subjective determination, for, not being evidential, it can have no substance. As such, it may be more-or-less or complete nonsense, and subject to moderation. Those who want to play in such a discussion free to do so. Those with little stomach for nonsense can stay out. And moderation can appropriately dispose of matters too nonsensical.
  • kudos
    373
    At the theology end of the spectrum, there appears to be zero evidence. It's all hearsay. The only way to philosophize, then, about theology, is to consider it, and all determinate subjects that have no evidential base, as ideas and speculation about ideas.

    It seems to me as though the philosophy of ‘keep things as simple as possible, but not more so’ aims ultimately to destroy itself when adopted mechanically by the masses. Separation of church and state so to speak will disarm religious ideas, but cannot cleanse us of their residues. If we could organize a standard category of evidence for rationalizing philosophical hypotheses, what is there about philosophy based on evidence that would be extricable from centrism with regard to the theology, culture, socio-economic environment, class, of the individual doing the rationalizing?
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    If we could organize a standard category of evidence for rationalizing philosophical hypotheses, what is there about philosophy based on evidence that would be extricable from centrism with regard to the theology, culture, socio-economic environment, class, of the individual doing the rationalizing?kudos

    If I read this sentence right, it is the question of how evidence-based understanding and argument protect us from those who reason from a non-evidential standpoint. Ultimately, it doesn't. It becomes a question as to whether rule shall rule, or chaos, and after thousands of years the jury is still out.

    But I find in yours an a priori objection to argument from extra-evidential sources - probably a mistake on my part. But our world is not just a matter of direct evidence; it is also a world of ideas. And these arguments as beneficial as any. The mistake, as noted above, lies in supposing the unreal real, or more generally, in being confused.
  • Ron Hooft
    7
    Philosophy is used in science both in deciding on a topic for experiment, and then in the interpretation of the results. Hence why we have dozens of interpretations for QM.

    Philosophy is the use of logic to interpret facts/data and create models that then can be further explored by experiment if the philosopher has the interest of scientists, or by the continuation of applying logic to modifying the model as new evidence comes in. Wait and see.

    A real philosopher, like a real scientist makes guesses based on facts alone. Not only that, they don't try to sell guesses, no matter how educated, as fact. Too often hypothesis are sold as fact, like the dozen many worlds theories. All based on pretty and compelling math. But no mater how pretty and compelling your math is, it's not a fact until its varified by experiment. There's no such thing as mathematical certainty until the math's been proven to accurately predict the outcome of experiment. If it doesn't, it's wrong. If it can't be subjected to experiment it's no better than the idea of god in adding to our over all knowledge base..

    It's an idea that can't be proven true and can't be proven false. Why believe it is or isn't? No one knows and no one presently can. But keep trying to figure out a way, if it's possible.

    To me, a philosopher shouldn't care what the truth ends up being, we should care only about figuring out what it actually is. Therefore I believe nothing. I accept only facts. Belief in a fact is redundant and not required. Anything other than fact is speculation. Belief in speculation can be dangerous at worst and unproductive at best. Belief/faith doesn't change facts one way or the other, and closes an open mind

    There's nothing wrong with opinions based in fact. That's logic and model building. But the opinion should never be sold as fact. And that happens all too often.
  • Gregory
    4.6k
    I think if we have faith in logic, math, and deduction, we have to trust nature. Gods could fool us, but so can aliens, and multiverses. It takes much wisdom, to my eyes, to be able to distinguish possibilities with proper probability. Statistics has never been my thing. In psychology class I was classified as a dreamer
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.