However, despite the potential for water to be either of these things, when it "is" "ice" ie when it's probability of ice approaches 1, it's potential to be boiling approaches zero, impossible. — Benj96

So what you are saying is that the possibility that the universe is a subject has already happened and therefore cannot be anything else? Also when water is ice, it's not a probability, it's a fact.

Also having subjects in the universe doesn't make the universe a subject. And the possibility of the universe being a subject doesn't mean it is true, it's just a possibility among many others. And assessing the weight of that possibility among others is what's called a probability, which is what this thread is about.

6). Therefore the probability that the universe can exist as a subject is also 1. — Benj96

I'm not sure I understand. The probability of a possibility is one? (you said probability that the universe CAN exist as a subject). It can exist as a subject, this is certain, this is how I understand your statement, but it doesn't mean the probability of it existing as a subject is 1. So what's your probability on the existence of God?

Thanks for playing the game! I'll clarify the points:

6) We don’t have enough knowledge to make a plausible hypothesis of the creation of the universe that would explain all that we know now.

Are you talking about an origin of causality, all of the unknown steps that would lead to what we know today, — Philosophim

Yes, my idea of an hypothesis that could be plausible is that we would be able to relate it to the current laws of nature and everything would fall in place like the pieces of a puzzle. Considering that we cannot even unify laws together (eg. quantum physics with classical physics), it seems impossible to come up with an origin of causality from which would result these laws. Of course, no theories are perfect puzzles but if we call "plausible" a reasonable (or even countable) amount of "unknown" and contradictions, it's not possible for the origin of the universe.

So for 8), to assess the "plausibility", we would need to review the hypothesis one by one, apply it to all the laws we know, maybe count the question marks left unanswered and count the contradictions? But the problem is that there are many more unknown logical links (too many to be countable) and contradictions than actual links. Assuming we could count the actual links that make sense, if we were to make a ratio of plausibility, which would be: valid logical links/invalid logical links, the ratio would be the same for all hypothesis since we cannot count the invalid logical links, which is a great number for all hypothesis, much greater than the valid logical links, which seems insignificant in comparison, and therefore useless to count.
As an analogy, it would be like taking physical laws one by one and trying to explain it using only premises from the bible. I can't even think of one law that can emerge from such premises.

We do currently have a plausible hypothesis. — T Clark

Really? What would that be?

. We can certainly generate an infinite number of propositions about anything. That is one of the fundamental features of the kind of language we use. — T Clark

Well chat GPT doesn't agree on that one, and I'm not sure what your premises are for such assumptions. Our imagination is infinite? Why would that be? Imagine a set a elements of a finite size, and imagine all the combinations possible, how could that ever be infinite?

It's clear that the possible combinations are not random. — T Clark

I never said they were, I said if they were, it wouldn't change their accuracy.

This is clearly not true. — T Clark

I don't really know what you're trying to achieve here with that type of answer. It's not true according to YOU. There rarely are consensus in philosophy, especially metaphysics. And I can't read your mind to figure out why you think it's not true, so that sentence doesn't bring any value to the conversation.

I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that we only know the substances we've observed or witnessed? That's clearly not true. Or do you mean that we do positively know the substances we have witnessed or observed. That's not true either. — T Clark

The 4) statement makes an attempt at explaining how we gather knowledge in just a few words, while it represents a whole discipline (epistemology) so yes it's incredibly unprecise and lacks a lot of elements. What I wanted to express with that statement is that knowledge emerge from elements we've "experienced", in whatever way we have, whatever tool we built to be "aware" of it. I made that statement to be able to talk about these "elements" that are part of our current knowledge. I didn't express it well, if you think of a more accurate way, yet synthetized, please do tell. Maybe there is a technical word that qualify these "elements" I'm trying to talk about?

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I am sure it's wrong — T Clark

It's quite funny you're actually aware of this. You said just here, that you dismiss my theory based on an intuition you cannot explain. So you admit there is no explicit logic in your opinion (which is that you disagree with mine), but yet claim my answer lacks logic, it's pretty amazing.

Cognitive biases effect both the uncritical as well as the critical thinker. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I would just say that I see cognitive biases as the result of a normal emotional response in humans, which affects the "direction" of thoughts. I don't like to put people in two distinct groups "critical and uncritical", that's actually one of my critique for cognitive biases, it seems like they want to make people "critical" but most of the time, they just tell people how to meet the standards of one discipline (often science) without taking personal experience into account. So basically, it often ends up with "trust serious experts and don't try to understand yourself because you will be biased". And to them, the "critical" people are simply the ones who meet the standards of a discipline. So that term is meaningless to me.

In other words, to me, it's not about being "critical" or "uncritical", it's about how much people fight emotional responses: and the more they do; the more objective knowledge they will produce. And to me, trying to be aware of cognitive biases is not going to help in fighting the influence of emotions on the rational mind. And this is because you can never know if you're biased or not. And on the contrary, working with emotions is clearer. It seems easier for me to judge if I'm angry, defensive or happy, rather than asking myself "Was I biased by the success of the lottery winner?" How could you ever answer that? You can't trace back the unconscious reasoning. So even if you feel like buying a lottery ticket afterwards, how would you know if it's biased or not? However, you could access your emotions and realise you're more excited than before you met the lottery winner, so you could decide to wait until that emotion fades away to see if you still want to buy a lottery ticket. And only then you would have a better estimation of how much it affected your thoughts at the time.

I used the term "ego trap" because a lot of people feel like they're more critical because they know these theories, while to me, it's the opposite. For example, they would judge the opponent's opinion as biased (which is very easy to do because they are so many biases, you can always find one) and reject it because of it. But they wouldn't be as rigorous when it comes to inspecting their own biases: we tend to notice the splinter in the other's eye, but don't notice the beam of wood in our own. And I don't see how any of the cognitive biases theory could help prevent this.

Which I see as concluding that critical thinking doesn't immunize against biases. — Caerulea-Lawrence

So that's not what I meant. To rephrase it, I would say: fighting emotional responses would mitigate cognitive biases, because it's fighting the cause. But fighting cognitive biases directly seems pointless as they're unconscious and are very difficult (impossible?) to perceive with certainty. So fighting cognitive biases directly doesn't help mitigate them!

And my main point is that when you fight the emotional responses, it prevents cognitive biases so naming them and finding "tools" to detect it seems useless and extremely complex compared to just assessing emotions.

Wait...What? You're actually debating it? It's ironic, right?

Physically, we're somewhere at the bottom; mentally, we top the list. — Agent Smith

Thank you! You directly put it on a scale because you know that "big/small" doesn't give much information. It's the same with the other questions, they implicitly drive people to debate it as if it was 2 separate concepts rather than a scale.

A better way to ask the question would be "How tall is the average human?" or "How tall are humans compared to other species on earth?".

But, for some reasons, when people ask these questions :
Are humans selfish?
Are sciences objective? Is philosophy subjective?
Does free will exist or is it an illusion?

They debate 2 positions instead of creating a scale. Even if we define what "selfish" means, having the answer "yes or no" isn't very informative. Aristotle made a separation of self-love (philautia) into people who love themselves and act morally and those who love themselves and act immorally. In that sense we're all "selfish", we're all focused on ourselves, our needs, but the difference is that some people's need include making others happy, and for other people, it does not as much, so that makes them more selfish. I don't think the question "are we focused on our own needs?" is very interesting, to me it's kind of obvious that we are. In the end we do what we do for a reward, which is the good feelings, whether it's triggered by making others feel good or not. But what's more interesting is to study how our needs include caring about others, and how it varies from people to people.

I don't understand why philosophy is so binary. Why they like to take two opposite concepts and prove they both have problems instead of creating one in between... Like Rationalism vs. Empiricism for example.

What evidence do we have to demonstrate that humans are selfish? I still think the question emerges from an illogical reasoning in the first place.



Yeah okay, maybe it's useful in the educational system as it is now...


Post update

What if the fifth question is : "Are humans big in size?"
Still no obvious common problem?

Components of philosophy that are missing:
4. Logic — Agent Smith

Yes, how does it lack logic? What makes these questions illogical?

By stipulating “philosophical research” sufficient to answer the questions, isn’t an academic answer implied? — Mww

Are all philosophers doing research in academia? I don't think so.

Those “a little bit interested” can offer opinion. Is that enough? — Mww

Enough? What do you mean?

These questions seem to be looking for answers/certainty founded on some kind of metaphysical objectivity, which as far as I am aware is not possible — Tom Storm

Yes. So what would you ask if you want to know more about the "selfish/selfless nature" of a human being?

They read like exam questions. Vague and general, to give candidates the challenge of clarifying and explaining. — Cuthbert

They're more than vague, don't you think they would mislead the students?

In the implicit meaning the questions give to these terms.



Sorry, I didn't mean to play the teacher, and I'm not expecting an academic answer, I'm just trying to understand the intuition behind philosophical concepts.

To be more clear, to me they all lead to the same problem once they're debated, even if the terms are clarified.

Aren't all philosophical topics anthropocentric?

I'm assuming that's how religious people could reassure themselves, yes, why not? They basically stop thinking about it because they trust God, they trust whatever is in the afterlife. So even if someone asks them "yeah but well, what's there going to be in the afterlife and after that? They can say that they will see for themselves when they get there. I'm playing the devil's advocate here, I'm neither religious or spiritual, and I've never been either of the two.

??

Did you miss the part where I say that people assume they're gonna find the meaning of the afterlife in the afterlife itself?

I can tell you from experience that people who are dying and hold religious beliefs and beliefs in god are as likely to be frightened at the thought of dying as anyone — Tom Storm

It's not so much about the moment of dying itself, but dealing with existential crisis during your life. If you start thinking about these topics, if you have faith, you can use that as an escape "it's fine, I'll just go to another world, and what I'm doing here is just a step to something greater".

Besides, "the afterlife" only kicks the can by begging the question of the "meaning of the afterlife." — 180 Proof

Spiritual people just avoid thinking about the meaning, sometimes they say that "only god can understand" — Babbeus

It keeps you focus on one step, on the life you're living now, they probably think that they will find the meaning of the afterlife in the afterlife itself, and so on. It's like a high school student who's passionate about physics and wants to understand a specific concept for which he needs more background than he has, he's just going to wait until he goes to university. But yeah you're right, it actually prevents people from thinking too far for their own good. They "trust" whatever forces out there instead of investigating by themselves. If you think about it, the "why" questions never end, the only way to get closure with it is to know where to stop, which "why" is too far from the reality we live in to make sense. So I was wondering if we could make a rational approach of metaphysics that would get people back on track of their lives, as much as religion does. Like take the physics student, if you tell him "you'll understand at university", or if you tell him "well actually we don't understand that one, it's just a mathematical model that happens to work", one is certainly more powerful for motivation than the other. With the second one, maybe the student is going to be like "well fuck this shit, I like understanding stuff completely, so I'm gonna go for engineering instead".

Or maybe the society feeds the need to understand "completely" way too much, doesn't show the uncertainties enough, keeps saying "that's okay, scientists know", or experts or whatever. So naturally people get disappointed when they realize "no one knows", not even "god". Maybe people would naturally stop the "why" questions when they realize it's out of their reach, and it wouldn't come as a disappointment if they're used to deal with uncertainties. Maybe they wouldn't try to play the superhuman who can understand several dimensions, or multi directional times even though we only know past present future. no offense.

Sounds like you may have come from a religious upbringing or culture that privileges afterlife stories — Tom Storm

It's more than afterlife stories (cf last paragraph I wrote on this post).

I'm also an eternalist (I actually thing Einstein's theory is more likely correct than incorrect), and that means there isn't a present moment that will someday not include me, or at least what I call 'me'. — noAxioms

So you're not afraid of disappearing because you believe you'll always exist somewhere in this universe? But to you, to your consciousness, the passing of time is one directional, so when it ends, will it start again somewhere else? What is it going to feel like for you?

I have more of a need for truth than a need for imaginary comfort, but I was surprised to find the latter (and meaning as well) anyway. — noAxioms

So what's your imaginary comfort on this one? That you live for your family? What if your family was dead and you didn't have any friends? Would you then still be comfortable that life has no meaning?

The statement makes no sense unless you believe in an afterlife. — noAxioms

It does not indeed. "There is no afterlife" makes more sense.

Because picturing "nothing" is scary, because death is scary? Also about the meaning of life, there isn't any, why don't we all commit mass suicide?

That's a rumour that appeared after his death... Even if it's true, we would have discovered the structure of DNA at that time anyway because they already had X-Ray images of DNA, that could be done thanks to Wilkins who also got the nobel prize for it... So really no need for an extraordinary imagination or anything crazy.

Freud was said to be a regular cocaine user. — Jackson

Okay, well that explains a lot :lol:

Wouldn't it be an error to ascribe privileged status to the sober state of mind? Aren't both the sober and high states, both simply states, and so coequal? — hypericin

The human body is used to the sober state, so naturally it functions best in that state. When you're high, it's a drastic change into an environment you're not adapted to, and the chances that you will thrive in that new environment are very low. You grew up sober, your brain developed in that state, produces certain neurotransmitters in certain situations, and drugs disrupt it "randomly", it's like randomly miswiring your neurons. The chances that something productive comes out of it are extremely low... And it's tricky because drugs release certain neurotransmitters that can make you feel like you've made the greatest discovery of the human race...

Also, given the amount of people who do drugs, if it had a positive effect on the thinking process, we'd probably have a lot of great inventions/discoveries from high people, which is not the case.

The insights I've heard about (from hallucinogens) are either metaphysical/spiritual (which cannot be proven anyway so we can't judge the accuracy) or people who suddenly find motivation in their life, maybe because it unblocked an emotional blockage or something like that, but then it's not really an insight.

The concept of cognitive bias exists and is well supported by research even if people can't use it as a tool on themselves alone — Bylaw

I never disagreed with that.

If you want perfect and 100% certainty then apply to be something simpler like a toaster. — Bylaw

It's really funny cause I created another thread to try and name this kind of behaviour. Wanting more certainty doesn't mean wanting 100% certainty. It's foolish to even think 100% certainty is possible to reach... Of course I never meant to reach 100% certainty in that topic...

Oh, and of course it is falsifiable. You can easily test to see if someone's poltical position affects what they notice in articles. — Bylaw

It's falsifiable as a general concept, I don't have anything against the experiments. But the thing is, detecting it personally in someone at a specific time is much more tricky. An experiment with one person being both the control and test subject is kind of crappy... Say you read two articles, one contradicting your point of view and the other supporting it. What if you remember several info about the supporting one because it reminded you of something that has shocked you in the past? Say you're scared of dolphins, and the supporting one has an analogy with dolphins... You wouldn't remember it because of the confirmation bias, although the result is the same. My point is, you can remember something in one specific article rather than another one for many reasons, even unconscious ones, maybe you just liked the layout of one article more than the other, or something stupid like that...

They can point out when you contradict yourself. And this kind of dialogue (which hopefully is mutual) can and does reduce people's biases — Bylaw

You don't need the cognitive bias theory for that. If a person ignores some data because it contradicts their opinion, you could ask them how they take these data into account in their ways of thinking, and if they can't answer/don't want to, you know they have some emotional blockage with that. I find it much more efficient to lay all the data on the table, link it logically, and ask the person how they reached another conclusion, discussing the logical link. And if some data are ignored (because of the survivorship bias, because of the confirmation bias, or because unicorns are white), it's going to be visible and you can point it out to the person. Like this technique mentioned by @jgill. But who cares about the cause in the end? Who cares if you act like this because of some trauma from your past or whatever? Point is, if you force yourself to lay everything on the table, you're going to be more objective anyway, you're going to mitigate these "biases", even if you have no idea they even exist.

I honestly don't think psychoanalysis is a good tool for improving yourself and trying to detect cognitive biases in someone seems to have a lot of common grounds with it.

I'd call it "equivocation" -- because you both mean different things by "selfish" — Moliere

Yes, thanks, I guess this would include what I'm talking about, although equivocation is not specific to the binary vs non binary problem caused by simplification of language.

Suppressed correlative fallacy. — DingoJones

Ah that's much better, thanks! I'm going to be greedy but there is still something that's different from what I meant. From my understanding, in the suppressed correlative, one kills the meaning of a word by making two categories into one. Like saying "this product is not natural", and the other person would be like "nature is everything that surrounds us, including us and what we do to nature, so everything is natural". That makes the adjective natural completely useless. But what I meant is really about the non binary nature of things. What I mean is more about the debate "this product is more natural than that product" (who could be phrased as "this is natural and that's not" as simplification) and the other saying "but a product that's 100% natural is impossible because we manufacture it anyway". They don't destroy the meaning of natural but they fail to see it on a scale. So it's not X or not X in the first place but like aX with "a" ranging from 0 to 1, and the other person would see it as X or not X and use proofs that X is not possible if your position is 0.9X. In my example, actually they both agree that 1X is impossible, but the person who can only see it as X or not X doesn't understand the 0.9X (or doesn't want to); Do you know what I mean? Did I understand the meaning of suppressed correlative fallacy correctly?

That's bosiness — baker

You mean bossiness?

Anti-difference-of-degree-ism — emancipate

Did you just make that up?

they have a specific contextual reason for making that statement at that time to that person — Joshs

Oh okay, that works too, but not in all cases. It would be like a deliberate change of context, if one is trying to insult and the other goes all philosophical about the nature of selfishness in humans. But if you're arguing about whether sciences are more "objective" than human sciences, and that the person says that nothing can be objective anyway, it's still the same context, it's an epistemological context in both cases.

they were choosing to ignore the specific contextual sense of the phrase in favor of a generic meaning — Joshs

Mmmm I don't know, it doesn't seem context related to me. I believe anyone (who likes questioning things) could say "you're selfish" and mean "you're more selfish than average" in any context. Actually I don't like the word selfish as it is, in its meaning it's already simplified as if it was black and white (" lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.") anyone tends to do that to some extend...

Everything's closer. — bongo fury

Everything is closer than everything? :sweat:

Possibly hyperbole - deliberate exaggeration — RussellA

Yes, it's getting closer. The only problem I have is that saying "you're selfish" or "how can you be sure" isn't a deliberate exaggeration, they're actually very common statements, it's more of a simplification.

Context insensitivity — Joshs

Context-insensitive expressions are governed by linguistic rules that determine their contents (semantic values), which remain invariant in all contexts of utterance.

Is that what you meant?

It's not really a phenomenon but a type of fallacy maybe? It's not just skepticism, because both persons could be skeptics, one is just using a simplification of language, which the other deliberately ignores to be right about something...

Or maybe there is name to describe people who refuse to see things as non binary?

certainty brings insanity”, Certainty is not possible. — ArielAssante

So you shouldn't try to work with things that are more certain than others? You shouldn't try to maximise the certainty? When I said "how can you be sure", I obviously didn't see certainty as something binary, it has shades. I was referring to the falsifiable principle of Popper.

excessive thinking not good. Tends toward narcissism — ArielAssante

Um... This is a very extreme opinion. Some people who overthink actually have very low self esteem and aren't narcissistic at all...

But don't get me wrong, I actually agree that knowing yourself is the best thing you could do to be more critical, I just don't think naming biases and trying to detect it in yourself or others is going to help.

. It is a useful concept, I think, AND people can use it terribly. — Bylaw

Yeah sure but how do you prevent yourself from using it terribly? For guns you can have a license, also check if you're stable mentally, but what about cognitive bias? My point is you can never know for sure if you're biased, so I don't see the point trying to figure out if you are, it's nonsense, not falsifiable. Maybe in some cases it would help someone get some distance from themselves, because they would question their opinions, but I really don't think the detection of cognitive bias are the best questions to ask, I think they lead to a lot of confusion. And I also think it can quickly escalade to some kind of superiority.

How does anything of what you sent me answer any of my questions?
If you're implying it's excessive to push the bias theory as far as having bias in the process of mitigating other biases, why do you think it is excessive?

You showed the theory, that's great, but I'm saying it's impossible to apply it and be aware of cognitive biases. I didn't make this thread to know more about the theory, I made it to get an actual debate about its application.

Work to make the unconscious conscious. The few who attempt to do so find it is a long, painful process. — ArielAssante

What if you’re biased with another bias when you conclude you’re biased? What if you like the cognitive bias theory so much that it’s the confirmation bias to think you’re biased? How would you know which one is true? How can you be sure you consciously realised what was in your unconscious mind?

remediating it (by whatever amount) is better than not, don't you think? — Pantagruel

But how do you plan to do that if you can't even know for sure if it's there or not? At a given moment for a given opinion, we have no tools to detect it...

I'm not sure I understand how you are connecting cognitive bias theory with critical thinking. In what sense are you proposing they are connected? — Tom Storm

Well, having cognitive biases would lead to a more "subjective" vision of reality, so cognitive bias mitigation would naturally lead to a more "objective" one, and that would imply to be more critical about yourself or others in order to do that.

Actually that is exactly what it means. It seems you are coming from some kind of radically anti-scientific bias. All in good fun I guess, but not a good use of my time. — Pantagruel

With experiments, we can conclude a lot of people have cognitive bias (or whatever you want to call it actually), but that doesn't mean that we have tools to measure it quantitively in someone at a given moment. You have no way of measuring how much someone's opinion is biased. What did you have in mind? That we have some kind of cognitive bias detector that tells you how biased you are?

but by drawing pictures on the board and describing the underlying concept students could see through the complications and comprehend a rational argument that implied the result — jgill

Oh yeah I think that method could actually help a lot, it would be harder to ignore one element due to strong emotions if it's in front of your eyes and logically connected to all the others.

But I was talking about trying to figure out if you are experiencing a cognitive bias, like simply asking yourself "do I take this decision because of the survivorship bias?". I think that approach is not efficient at all.

But I think this thread is more about political biases. — jgill

Political? No not necessarily, it could be all kinds of bias really.

Experimentation requires quantifiable results. Statistical are quantitative. — Pantagruel

Just because we use numbers for interpretations doesn't mean the phenomenon is quantitatively measurable...

Another weird thread that starts with a slightly off OP and gets worse as it proceeds. — Banno

Um... I'm going to ignore that, I don't want to start a war. I only meant to share my thoughts and understand a concept that's trendy nowadays.

Cognitive bias is not one thing — Banno

Yeah okay, use the plural if you prefer that, it's a concept that has a lot of subcategories.

The example in the OP is not an instance of cognitive bias. — Banno

How is it not the survivorship bias?

We can adjust for Cognitive bias by being aware of them, giving consideration to what justifies our beliefs and by subjecting our beliefs to public critique. — Banno

How can you be aware of something that's unconscious?

You are denying accepted psychology. — Banno

Heresy, burn him! No one shall go against the opinion of the great masters of psychology.

confirmation bias distorts news all the time and is a threat to democracy. — jgill

. . .

This has gone terribly wrong, I wanted to argue about HOW and WHY people think it helps with critical thinking and no defenders of that theory actually explained it... Can anyone tell me how you can detect something that's unconscious? Doesn't this cognitive bias theory has the same problem as psychoanalysis, that's it's not falsifiable?

Many of these biases have been tested in experimental conditions, — Pantagruel

That doesn't mean that it's measurable quantitatively...

Consider the law of small numbers bias. If you are aware of the tendency to make judgements based on unreasonably small sample sizes, then you can suspend judgment pending more data — Pantagruel

That works for experiments, not personal opinions... You could have a lot of well-grounded reasons to believe in something, even though there aren't direct experiments about it, or even though you've only observed it in some people for example. It's not necessarily a bias to have an opinion based on a small number of cases. But to go back to the survivorship bias, in the example I gave, realising there is a bias doesn't really help you make a "less emotional" decision, it leads to confusion. Regarding knowledge, it's going to be the same thing, every time there is room for a grey area, your feelings might make you see it completely white (or black), and I don't see how the cognitive bias theory could help you.

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to think in terms of feelings? At least you can consciously realise how you're feeling, and know that it might influence your opinion. It gets even better as you can think about the same thing once you've calmed down and see if your opinion is the same. At least it's falsifiable as you don't feel the same things all the time, unlike cognitive biases that have no way of being detected consciously.

Cognitive biases are quantitatively measurable — Pantagruel

I would very much like to see your sources for that info.

Brains are survival machines, not truth machines! — Agent Smith

More objective truth helps with survival though...

Yet, some people are more biased to accept the word of God, than others. — Gnomon

I didn't get that...

I just thought of something else. Do you think someone who spends a lot of time understanding people will be able to grasp one's opinion better? You talked about exposing believes and goals, but then don't people need to have knowledge in psychology as well? Don't we need a strong basis about how our goals and believes interact with our opinions to be able to make use of it?

Because someone might be good at detecting flaws in logic but clueless about these things, right?

Here are examples of questions that I think have very, very little meaning or interest, because of what I have outlined above.

Is God existent?
Is morality objective?
Is [insert literally anything] true?
Is [insert literally anything] moral?
Is life/ humanity inherently good/ bad? — SatmBopd

The way I see it: if a person defines both terms, and ask one of these questions on this forum, they probably want to challenge the logic behind it. If you define a category X and a category Y, and if you're trying to figure out how these categories are connected to each other (completely included, partially,...), it could be interesting to ask people their opinion. They might point out something in your X category that makes it impossible to be related to Y, and you might not have thought about it.
Even if you wouldn't define X as they define it, it could still be productive for both parties to debate using one's point of view.

What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why? — SatmBopd

This would be ideal but do you really think it's realistic? Can you really tell why you believe in something? Most of the time, the way you reached a specific opinion has a lot of unconscious steps, so how could you go back and explain how you got there? What if you're wrong? What if you think you got there because of X reasons, while it's actually not at all because of that? That would make it even more confusing for others. And they couldn't prove you wrong, because only you could answer that. Do you know what I mean?

mind boy dualism is by many considered to be untenable. What he did (possibly, I wasn't there of course) was show you how this assumption, which is deeply problematic, was made in your argument. — Tobias

In other words :
Question : Is the mind separated from the body?
Philosophical answer : Probably not, because it would cause a lot of problems if it was.

Assumptions : a lot of assumptions about what the mind and the body actually mean.
Problem : the scientists and philosophers have totally different definition of these.

You, a couple of lines later :

Philosophy questions, it does not give answers but puts those on the spot that would like to provide an answer. — Tobias

How's that not an answer to say the mind is probably not separated from the body?
Philosophy of sciences studies the assumptions of science, and I believe epistemology can study the assumptions of philosophy. But philosophy isn't just about criticising knowledge, is it? What about Ontology, doesn't it study what reality is? How is that a critique of knowledge provided by other disciplines?

Well, you can of course, but you will run into problems because you have unwittingly accepted a whole lot of assumptions that they carry around with them. — Tobias

Oh and philosophical concepts don't have assumptions?
And by the way, this hypothetical science-based philosophy could still take "advice" from a philosophy of sciences.

But I can understand your frustration cause though I find it necessary ,sometimes the overanalysis ends up ridiculous. — dimosthenis9

You know what's funny? If you set the limits of the analysis, it's impossible to overanalyse, you would end up saying "this matter is out of the limit of this discipline".

How do you imagine that method? — dimosthenis9

Well, I actually believe some clarity could be gained if we made the assumptions explicit rather than implicit. To visualise, we could build a mind map with all the underlying scientific concepts that lead to an understanding of the abstract one that we study, and detail the logical links we made between them. And this would include the uncertainties of the links we made. For example you could say this concept is partly related but not totally because of x and y, which can't be measured. To make it perfect, we would need this concept, which isn't proven by science. Do you know what I mean?

There could be several mind maps, with different underlying concepts but the idea would be to build the one that has the least uncertainties.

wasn't he doing what philosophy ought to do? — Tobias

Well, if this is what philosophy does, it becomes even clearer to me that it's impossible for science and philosophy to collaborate... What do you think?

On the questions that were left.... he had no opinion. Of course not, because probably they were questions best left to science and he is no scientist. In one of my classes (not in uni but at a private course) a student exclaimed "are we getting any answers!". I answered "no, only better questions". — Tobias

I have no problem if someone doesn't have an opinion, but he could have said so from the beginning. Instead, he just explained how my point of view did not fit in his philosophical one... (and I'm not a philosophy student so that was even more irrelevant). If you want more details, my question was whether he thinks there are other causes than psychological ones for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (yeah I know, weird topic). And he spent his time telling me how we cannot separate the mind and the body. The problem is, there are a lot of philosophical concepts, and a lot of them contradict each other, so how can you even say that a question is wrong if it doesn't fit a concept (which here I think is more of an opinion)? What would be the "better questions"? Questions that challenge the logic of the concepts? Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? How does that make it "wrong"? What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion?

Thank you! I think you understood my point.

The counter argument of course is that in many philosophical theories (of any kind of field) science plays a crucial role indeed — dimosthenis9

Could you give me an example?

Maybe he wants to suggest a science based philosophy that would unify all fields or something like that — dimosthenis9

I don't see it as it would unify all fields, but rather use some scientific theories (not all!) when it seems relevant to a "philosophical" issue. Maybe it is already done by some but there are a lot of concepts for which it isn't done and if we had such a discipline, we wouldn't miss out on so many concepts. As I gave the example earlier, scientists don't define the term "individual" or "organism". When I'm searching for such definitions, I mostly find debates about whether it is useful to define it, whether it belongs to philosophy or biology, or whether it should be studied by philosophy of biology, and I just find this incredibly inefficient. I saw that philosophy of biology aims to clarify such concepts but I'm still wondering : where is it at? Where is their consensus?

There seems to be a huge problem for philosophers and scientists to communicate with each other and maybe that's why it doesn't lead to some kind of encyclopedia where they would define such concepts (also giving the uncertainties on the definition they created). My point being, this interdisciplinary approach is clearly not working, so maybe we should forget everything we know about philosophy (only for that purpose, not remove it from the society), start with just science and slowly create a method on how to maximize logical reasoning leading to these concepts.

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!). — Tobias

I'm sorry you felt insulted, it did not mean to insult philosophy. I did mean to criticise it though. Maybe I haven't spent enough time with philosophers to say all of this with certainty, but my experience has been pretty bad, and not just with philosophers, but also when I read philosophical articles in general. I once spent 15 mins trying to get a philosophy professor to answer one of my question, which simply was "what's your opinion on that matter?". It lead to a lot of side talking, where he explained to me how my questions were "wrong", how we could not see it the way I see it. And, to be honest this is the kind of behaviour that makes quite upset, as I wouldn't want to see philosophy as some kind of religion with rules where only certain opinions are accepted because they do not contradict other philosophical concepts. The funniest thing is that, in the end, he said he doesn't have an opinion, he doesn't know... I really don't know how science and philosophy can collaborate if philosophy doesn't accept to see the world other than with philosophical concepts...

I excepted this to be more funny, disappointed.

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