Varela — Joshs

Good. I was reading about enactivism in grad school and remember reading Varela and being interested. Had too many things to do to go further.

I suppose philosopy was always tightly connectected to science of the day, at least up to and including Whiteheads strange metaphysics. I'm not exactly sure what happened after that. What's the role of philosophy today? To me it looks like it's a mere "metascience", tool for understanding basics of other science, analyzing its own history etc.

I suppose philosopy was always tightly connectected to science of the day, at least up to and including Whiteheads strange metaphysics. I'm not exactly sure what happened after that. What's the role of philosophy today? To me it looks like it's a mere "metascience", tool for understanding basics of other science, analyzing its own history etc. — Olento

Many philosophers are interested in the philosophy of science. But if you look at statistics of jobs offers for philosophy professors, most are not in that area of specialty.

The point of comparison would only apply to the topics these two disciplines have in common. For example, philosophy also discusses what logic is, there is also a philosophy of the mind, etc. My question is, for those topics, which method do you think would work best? (by best, I mean having a greater potential of being useful in other disciplines, or in the society). — Skalidris

Scientific information is important but at a certain point that information ends and you will be required to philosophize without experimentation. If you want to explain everything there is simply no way to do it through science.

Science is philosophy. Methodological naturalism.

Finding that out is also included in the search of truth progress — dimosthenis9

The question though is, if it's worth the bloodshed.

For example, person A thinks he knows the truth. The majority B thinks they know. Person A is tortured, his rights denied, and ridiculed, because B thinks they know better.

It hss to be said, I seem to understand an electron or the things it's made of. When it comes to my wife, I'm sometimes totally clueless.

Person A is tortured, his rights denied, and ridiculed, because B thinks they know better. — Hillary

I don't see how this is relevant to seeking the truth. When you seek for the truth you don't need to deprive others from their rights. That has nothing to do with that.
Things you describe are general human weaknesses and not caused by searching the truth. In fact I would say it's even the opposite. When you don't seek for the truth yourself, it is more possible to end up acting like that cause just somebody else told you to do so.

I don't see how this is relevant to seeking the truth — dimosthenis9

Well, I witness this in the very core of science. Views that are right are shunned, ridiculed, argumented to death, or banned, while the majority clings to the hallucination, precisely because the "urgency" to know.

Views that are right are shunned, ridiculed, argumented to death, or banned... — Hillary

Views that are based upon repeatable peer-reviewed scientific results?

so that the bases of the discipline are experiments, which, in my opinion, is a more objective window to the world than any other tools. The first consequence of this is that it would exclude a lot of topics that can’t be related to sciences with logic. For example, there is no concept in sciences which can help discuss the existence of God, so this matter would be ignored, and maybe left out for philosophy. It would question things like the human behaviour in a broader picture than psychology, the mind, life, the nature of ethics, space, infinity, logic, … — Skalidris

The interesting thing is that in the previous thread you argued for the independent thinker. However here, what you really seem to want is to limit philosophy to the scientific method, restricting the independency of philosophy. You want to do that because in your view the experimental method yields more'objective' insights. You implicitly value third person description higher. However, we might well lose some registers of thought when we embrace this approach. Thinking through such implications is a matter of philosophical enquiry. Such an implicit value judgment has also ethical implications because the scientific method is not neutral. When we elevate its findings to the level of truth beyond what experiments actually prove, but base our 'bigger picture' on it you reduce the world to that which can be experimentally understood in a laboratory setting. You also neglect the fact that such a jump requires a lot of interpretation but how that is done remains unclear.

Your plea for independence in fact comes down to a plea for reductionism and dependence, limiting rather than expanding our avenues of thought. It does not come as a surprise because such absolutist proposals when thought through tend to revert into their opposite. I recommend the dialectical philosophical method ;).

Views that are based upon repeatable peer-reviewed scientific results? — creativesoul

The point is, that these exactly could be wrong.

I witness this in the very core of science. Views that are right are shunned, ridiculed, argumented to death, or banned, — Hillary

Are these things what science does??? And especially to "right views"?? Since when?
You have a very weird view of what science is or does I have to say.

The point is, that these exactly could be wrong. — Hillary

They could be. But because they went through rigorous peer review the chance is lower than your average garden variety theory thought up by whoever.

But because they went through rigorous peer review the chance is lower than your average garden variety theory thought up by whoever. — Tobias

My point is that exactly that so-called peer reviewing can be a peer hallucination.

Yes, it is possible, but so can some individual be hallucinating. What is more likely, 5 knowledgeable people hallucinating altogether or 1?

Are these things what science does??? And especially to "right views"?? Since when? — dimosthenis9

Since the very beginning. The right stuff of today can turn out the wrong tomorrow.

Yes, it is possible, but so can some individual be hallucinating. What is more likely, 5 knowledgeable people hallucinating altogether or 1 — Tobias

That depends on the people involved.

That depends on the people involved. — Hillary

Seems odd....Some people are more prone to hallucination than others, sure, but the chance of having 5 prone is smaller than one prone.

I think you do understand this rather simple logic, but you do not want to. You do not want to because that would involve critical self reflection and you would have to face the possibility that you yourself might be hallucinating. You do not want to face that possibility just yet. You will though, in time.

Seems odd....Some people are more prone to hallucination than others, sure, but the chance of having 5 prone is smaller than one prone. — Tobias

It could be that the sixth realized the hallucination. I feel like the sixth.

It could be that the sixth realized the hallucination. I feel like the sixth. — Hillary

yes but how likely is it really that you are? That is what you have to wonder about. You might feel like A, but if you hear B all the time, you might be B, no?

yes but how likely is it really that you are? That is what you have to wonder about. You might feel like A, but if you hear B all the time, you might be B, no? — Tobias

Yes! I heard B too long. Assumed it real. But actually it's A. And only a genius can tell!

yes but how likely is it really that you are? — Tobias

I havent done the exact statistics, but its close to 100%.

Science can't pull itself up by it's bootstraps. That's the thing, one of the things, that philosophy is needed for. — T Clark

I think you understood that I wanted to remove philosophy and do sciences only, which is absolutely not what I meant.

If you want to explain everything there is simply no way to do it through science. — chiknsld

I suggest you read again my OP where I explicitly say that it wouldn't try to explain everything, and that some topics would be left for philosophy.

you really seem to want is to limit philosophy to the scientific method — Tobias

No, I want to create something else that is restricted to scientific theories as the basis of the reasoning, not the scientific method. Did everyone miss the part where I said I don't want to replace philosophy? That I'm only comparing the topics these two would have in common?

You also neglect the fact that such a jump requires a lot of interpretation but how that is done remains unclear — Tobias

No, in the example, I talk about the uncertainties, and about why it lead to poor theories when they tried something like that with evolutionnary psychology. And yes, how it is done is probably unclear for you, so you're saying it's impossible to do it well?

Your plea for independence in fact comes down to a plea for reductionism and dependence, limiting rather than expanding our avenues of thought — Tobias

You totally misunderstood what I meant. Just because there would be a discipline that's dependent on scientific theories doesn't mean I encourage reductionism. Again, I DO NOT WANT TO DESTROY PHILOSOPHY. Or even believes, keep all that, the point of comparison does not apply to these.

RE: Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: What is "Science?" • What is a "science-based Philosophy?" • What is the "
Philosophy of Science?"
⁜→ Jackson, Skalidris, et al,

"Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why."
— Jackson

"a concept in philosophy of science that is defined with scientific concepts?"
— Skalidris

"The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts."
— Jackson

(COMMENT)

The "Philosophy of Science" is a sub-discipline of "Philosophy." "Philosophy" is the (in a broad sense). the critical and systematic study of an unlimited spectrum of concepts (science being just one of these concepts). The "science-based Philosophy" is the study of a subject that is done through the scientific method that renders verifiable findings by observation or experience rather than theory or subjective approach via logic.

The idea of "contemporary philosophy" is also subjective in its definition and application. I am 70 years old. What I feel as to what might be "contemporary" is not likely to be the same as a new undergrad taking Philosophy 101.

It would do away with Popper 's methodology!
— Hillary

OK, I have my chuckle for the day.

I've completed my doctorate studies, and I just cringe when Karl Popper is mentioned. IF you understand Popper, THEN you are a level beyond me.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, I have my chuckle for the day. — Rocco Rosano

:snicker: (a snicker!?)

I've completed my doctorate studies, and I just cringe when Karl Popper is mentioned. IF you understand Popper, THEN you are a level beyond me. — Rocco Rosano

His basics are easy. Science must be falsifiable, which is coupled to a Platonic realm of a world only approximately to be known, so without actually touching it. It's the ides most scientists cling to but in reality real scientist don't conform to this neurotic idea of a never ending search. At some point you say "this is true".

Look what I found on Quora. An excerpt:

If you mean someone who will come up with a revolutionary theory, I am not sure there will be one. The first requirement is NOT to work in a large group. Large groups need funding, and funding does not go to people playing in left field, and worse, large groups require group think.

A telltale...(is that the right expression?)

The right stuff of today can turn out the wrong tomorrow. — Hillary

So what? Of course that is the case,since science doesn't have all the answers neither claims it does.
But it is indeed the most appropriate method to search and test these answers for humanity's sake.
Real science is never dogmatic. It is a constant procedure and of course it contains a certain amount of uncertainty each time in every step.

How is that relevant to "argument to death" or "banning" others as you say? How is possible science to be responsible for all these things you mention?
Your way of thinking is really weird and out of the Logic path. And well, as to be honest, not really interested as to investigate it further.So take care.

Real science is never dogmatic — dimosthenis9

Central DOGMA of molecular biology

How is that relevant to "argument to death" or "banning" others as you say? — dimosthenis9

Because science pretends to search for truth, while in reality it's objective is far more obscure. Take care.