So what? — dimosthenis9

How you know the so desired truth then?

Yeah I forgot to mention that in some cases IS dogmatic! And good it does. If science shows Earth isn't flat and some still believe it is, well yeah good then that science doesn't leave any space to such nonsense.

Yeah I forgot to mention that in some cases IS dogmatic! And good it does. If science shows Earth isn't flat and some still believe it is, well yeah good then that science doesn't leave any space to such nonsense. — dimosthenis9

Likewise, there are flat-spacers. In the case of the central dogma though, a whole vision on nature might turn out to be a mass hallucination. There is no proof of the conjecture. Yet Dawkins uses it in his selfish gene scenario. And there are more dogmas...

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? — Skalidris

You want to create 'big pictures' based on scientific theory. Well go ahead study cultural sociology, or macro economics or big history. They are already there as branches of the sciences. You think philosophy comes up with 'big pictures', but only some philosophy like some science does so. And even those do not improve with the use of 'scientific theories'. Philosophy examines the building blocks of such theories for instance their conceptual aparatus and the paradigm in which they are articulated and how their claims to truth are assessed. Why would you want to use the object of enquiry to examine the object of enquiry? Seems very circular.

And let's say those philosophies that do offer big systems of thought, like Hegel's, The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware. That can never be refuted or proven by scientific theory, the picture is actually too big.

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?) — Hillary

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do?
If I count the odds than my assessment is that you dream of coming up with one but will not do so. What indications do you have for thinking you will come up with a revolutionary theory? If you use Quora as a source I have even less high hopes.

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias

Not many. Newton, Galilei, Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Smolin, Strominger, etc. to name a few all worked quite independently and were trendsetters.

If I count the odds than my assessment is that you dream of coming up with one but will not do so. — Tobias

Besides the syntactically wrong sentence, your assessment is wrong. How do you know? Statistics? Don't make me laugh...

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

If you look at the rest of my post, you should be able to see that I didn't misunderstand you.

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. — Rocco Rosano

Wait I'm confused : "is"? Like it actually exists?

Because science pretends to search for truth, while in reality it's objective is far more obscure — Hillary

Yeah careful, we're coming, be prepared.

Well go ahead study cultural sociology, or macro economics or big history — Tobias

Again, can you please read my OP? I said science based: chemistry, biology and physics.

The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware. That can never be refuted or proven by scientific theory, the picture is actually too big. — Tobias

You didn't understand what I meant, and I don't think you want to.

Why would you want to use the object of enquiry to examine the object of enquiry? — Tobias

Well that's what philosophy of science does, not everything in philosophy is about that.

Yeah careful, we're coming, be prepared. — Skalidris

The dark forces are gathering Skalidris... Dark clouds are seen in the West... We should consult the great wizard...

The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware — Tobias

Dear mother of gods...

Again, can you please read my OP? I said science based: chemistry, biology and physics. — Skalidris

No you said scientific based concepts and you provided those three as an example. Little did I know you think there are only three sciences in the world.

I read your OP. You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks.

You didn't understand what I meant, and I don't think you want to. — Skalidris

I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to.

Well that's what philosophy of science does, not everything in philosophy is about that. — Skalidris

No, philosophy of science philosophically investigates the concepts through which science works, it examines the methodology of science, it examines perhaps how scientific theories emerge, but it does not use scientific concepts to examine themselves.

Not many. Newton, Galilei, Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Smolin, Strominger, etc. to name a few all worked quite independently and were trendsetters. — Hillary

Yes and what are the odds that we see Hillary up there? You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton?

Besides the syntactically wrong sentence, your assessment is wrong. How do you know? Statistics? Don't make me laugh... — Hillary

I really do not need statistics for that assessment. Reading your posts is enough.

"Dear mother of gods..." And your reading comprehension, I gave an example and took it from there. This is not necessarily my opinion.

I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to. — Tobias

My conclusion as well.

Yes and what are the odds that we see Hillary up there? You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton? — Tobias

If you understand my cosmology you will see I belong in the row properly. Proper properly and not like most others claim, believe me...

I really do not need statistics for that assessment. Reading your posts is enough. — Tobias

Which only goes to show your level is very low.

You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks. — Tobias

Well have you thought about asking more questions instead of jumping into criticism?

but it does not use scientific concepts to examine themselves. — Tobias

What... This is such a twisted idea, why would anyone want to do that? To make things clearer, you could have another discipline, even a branch of philosophy which studies the method of this "science-based philosophy", just like there is a philosophy of science, why not? But this science-based philosophy wouldn't study the method of any discipline.

I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to. — Tobias

My conclusion as well. — Jackson

This is a forum for f sake... Why would you say that to someone who wants to have a productive debate? What do you hope to achieve with that? If you really think I don't have a point, ask more questions to prove it instead of telling everyone how stupid they are based on a few messages. Is that also part of the great set of methods philosophy has? Is that how you challenge the logic of your ideas?

Why would you say that to someone who wants to have a productive debate? What do you hope to achieve with that? If you really think I don't have a point, ask more questions to prove it instead of telling everyone how stupid they are based on a few messages. Is that also part of the great set of methods philosophy has? Is that how you challenge the logic of your ideas? — Skalidris

Respectfully, please state the thesis you are arguing for.

Respectively, please state the thesis you are arguing for. — Jackson

I did, in the OP, but if you think some parts are unclear, do tell.

Oh but by the way, I thought you said you didn't want to argue anymore, what happened to that?

Wouldn't that be like a butterfly trying to be a caterpillar? The sequence is all wrong. :snicker:

I thought you said you didn't want to argue anymore, what happened to that? — Skalidris

:snicker:

I excepted this to be more funny, disappointed.

I excepted this to be more funny, disappointed. — Skalidris

:snicker: Apologies.

I read your OP. You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks. — Tobias

I think his general point is that philosophy should have as a general starting point science facts.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers for everything. But we should have huge respect to it . And it is the best "method" we have as humans to verify these "answers".

In some cases 'yeah it can't help much since human knowledge has a lot more to discover. But in some other cases, science should (not to say must) be taken in much consideration as a starting point for any philosophical thinking. It would save us "time" and much "spiritual energy" if we did that.

For example: when we want to think philosophical about human behavior let's say, it is totally necessary to include the neurologist science and brain science and even biology(including genes as a crucial parameter also).
Our philosophical thinking can't ignore such science facts. If we want to come as close to the truth we can. That's what I think is his point and well at its core I agree. The way he express it though is kind of vague. But come on, he just arrived here. Don't be so harsh with him.

The counter argument of course is that in many philosophical theories (of any kind of field) science plays a crucial role indeed. So that kind of "science based philosophy" already exists in some way.
Maybe he wants to suggest a science based philosophy that would unify all fields or something like that .Just guessing and I m not really sure that this could be even possible.

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias

Here is An Example on this very forum.

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias

You tell me. I know I do.

You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton? — Tobias

That not are the geniuses. Newton was no genius whatsoever. Maybe I have nightmares about him but I certainly do not have wet dreams about him.

"Dear mother of gods..." And your reading comprehension, I gave an example and took it from there. This is not necessarily my opinion. — Tobias

I truly have no idea what you saying here. Must be my reading compression...

If you're claiming that conventional academic/scientific understanding could be wrong, I would readily concur. However, that alone is insufficient ground for denying some particular aspect of it.

Of course not. That would be silly and surely not sufficient. You gotta have good grounds for believing that a mass hallucination is happening in a scientific community.

As I am a physicist outside from the community, I think I have a better view on it.

I'm not following you. You claimed that science(in general) ridiculed some other scientists(presumably a minority) who were "right". I asked if the ridiculed peoples' views were based upon repeatable peer reviewed information(experiments/papers/etc.) As shown below...

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

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

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

:brow:

Seems to be a gap in communication here... Only you can help me to understand what you're trying to say. I'm now thoroughly confused regarding that.

I'm not following you. You claimed that science(in general) ridiculed some other scientists(presumably a minority) who were "right". — creativesoul

Yes. For example, the notion of a point particle being replaced by a more natural interpretation.

The point is, how does one know the peers are right? Because they say so? And you trust them? Okay...

Here is An Example on this very forum. — jgill

I am curious how did things turn out with him? I googled him and could not find much. I found a site in which he was quoted and it was said that he attracted praise from a noteworthy prof. It also said that the article was retracted... Also some connection to a company called bioresolve...

I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. It would not surprise me though if he was a really great (or good) mind. That has to do with his style on the forum. He provides an abstract and adds that it has been rewritten after some discussions with people on this forum, giving credit where it is due. He asks for feedback and discussion, which is good form. Compare that with some others here who just say: "everyone should work as they do in physics!" or: "I am a genius, I really really am! And Newton? Pha! no genius at all!". When I read such phrases I know I am not dealing with someone who is 'compos mentis'. About the content of Alexandre's article I cannot say anything as the mathematics and physics are over my head.

I think his general point is that philosophy should have as a general starting point science facts.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers for everything. But we should have huge respect to it . And it is the best "method" we have as humans to verify these "answers". — dimosthenis9

I like your post Demosthenis and that you stand up for Skalidris. I think on the face of it there would be a lot of disagreement between us, on the forum. However, in principle we agree on many things. I would not say "philosophy should have as its starting point scientific facts" as some of the philosophical questions on what criteria could something count as a fact, how are facts isolated from other facts, what does it mean for something to be a fact etc. I come from a continental tradition and you seem much ore analytical to me, though I could be wrong of course. The only thing on which I read both science and philosophy is the debate on free will. I did not find the scientific stuff very interesting or enlightening, but do love P.F. Strawson's article, even though I disagree with him on some accounts. (I do read a lot of social science though, but in this thread science seems equivocated with natural science).

However on many of the basic premises we would agree. Of course a philosopher should take science into account. There is no better way to explain the workings of the world than those discovered by science. For instance take 'behavioural economics'. If we would like to ask whether it is right to nudge people, an ethical question, we need to know how nudging works. We need to know the behaviorist model underlying it. So in our basic premises, should we rely on science to tell us how the world works, yes absolutely. Should we have great respect for it, a resounding yes!

The reason I am harsh on Skalidris is that his point is rather trivial, in your translation I tend to agree with it as well to a large extent, but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). Indeed, you just arrived here so blow a little less hard! I feel it is an insult to people who have learned a great deal more than he did. This is just my explanation for my own behaviour, that said I really do appreciate you defending him.