Quote: "Today, major subfields of academic philosophy include metaphysics, which is concerned with the fundamental nature of existence and reality, epistemology, which studies the nature of knowledge and belief, ethics, which is concerned with moral value, and logic, which studies the rules of inference that allow one to derive conclusions from true premises.[18][19] Other notable subfields include philosophy of science, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind."

Nope. Not in the same library either. :roll: — 180 Proof

Meh, life is too short to deal with rude people. Have a nice life!

Okay, good. That's what I thought, but then your emoji threw me off and I figured I'd better make sure we're actually on the same page :wink:

Not to me. I have no idea why you would say that. Perhaps another difference between philosophy and science is that everyone seems to have a much clearer idea of what science is than they do of what philosophy is. — Janus

I don't think we need to overthink it or leave it opaque:
"Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language."

And some additional background which clears up some of this science distinction:

"Historically, philosophy encompassed all bodies of knowledge and a practitioner was known as a philosopher.[14] From the time of Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to the 19th century, "natural philosophy" encompassed astronomy, medicine, and physics.[15] For example, Newton's 1687 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy later became classified as a book of physics.

In the 19th century, the growth of modern research universities led academic philosophy and other disciplines to professionalize and specialize.[16][17] Since then, various areas of investigation that were traditionally part of philosophy have become separate academic disciplines, and namely the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

and yet these are central to science; hence, science is a form of philosophy? — Banno

Which shouldn't be surprising, considering science originated in philosophy and was generally accepted as part of philosophy until rather recently in human history (roughly, the Enlightenment period). That's why scientists have PhDs to this day!

Hypothesis and prediction seem to consist in imagining, given the empirical observations that have been made. what forces or mechanisms could have been involved in producing the phenomena that have been observed, and then, when some hypothetical system has been conceived and explicated, predicting what other phenomena would likely be observed if the hypothesis were correct.If the predicted phenomena are observed then we have a theory, which remains falsifiable by further possible observations.

That doesn't seem to be significantly analogous to philosophical reasoning as far as I can see. — Janus

Sounds precisely like philosophy.

Just in case there is any confusion:

"Truth claim" is not the same as "true claim." It is a "claim to truth," in other words, "I claim X to be true."

This summarizes it neatly:

"A truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true. "

And:

"A major division of truth claims is that between positive and negative truth claims. Positive truth claims proclaim the existence of an object or entity. Negative truth claims, which are the opposite of truth claims, proclaim the non-existence of an object or entity."

https://handwiki.org/wiki/Philosophy:Truth_claim

Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. and its hypotheses and theories (if philosophical speculations are to be counted as such) are not testable, so it is, in both these respects, different from science. — Janus

If anything, hypothesizing and theorizing are THE moments in which scientists attempt to do philosophy.

Ecology without Nature, Timothy Morton

Everything that exists is natural.

I'm sure many people have questioned it. Here's an answer to the question "Is 'cogito ergo sum' true or false?" from Quora. — T Clark

This Quora user is mistaken. Descartes was not assuming a unified self. He was asserting that thought requires/implies a thinker. It's almost a truism (and truisms, though potentially trivial, are still true!).

If my self doesn't exist, if there is no "I," "I think, therefore I am," is not a "truth claim," it's meaningless. — T Clark

Truth claims can be made about non-existent things: Unicorns are pink. Harry Potter is a wizard. God is almighty. They can simply be false by nature of referencing non-existent things.

Can you give a example of a scientific metaphysical claim. — T Clark

The earth revolves around the sun.
OR
The earth is the center of the universe.

Both are (as @Banno points out) content-wise scientific. One is false, the other true. They still are metaphysical truth claims. They differ in content, though not in form or kind from:
"I exist."
Or
"There is a an observer-independent reality."

A truth-claims' "status" changes from undecided to positive truth-value when demonstrated and then to negative truth-value when refuted. "Earth is flat" is a refuted truth-claim aka a falsehood rather than a true statement, no? — 180 Proof

Yes exactly. Truth claims can either be falsehoods or true statements.

.and you can ask these questions only because you are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to employ that language. — Banno

Yes.

So what differentiates science from philosophy is more content than method. — Banno

:up:

Metaphysical propositions have no truth value, they are only more or less useful in particular situations. I — T Clark

In other words:
Philosophy and science both make metaphysical claims. They differ in focus, but not in kind.

"The earth circles around the sun."
And "I think therefore I am" are both truth claims and the status of "truth claim" doesn't change even when something is indeed proven false.

There are many philosophies and psychologies which do not recognize the existence of the self - me, myself, I. — T Clark

Never heard of one that actually disputes the cogito. They dispute the Western concept of a whole self, but not that something exists which is thinking/observing.

But still: it's a truth claim. It's either true or false. The objections from others don't change that the cogito is either true or not true.

[quote="T Clark;616799"

Are the correspondence and coherence theories of truth both true? My answer - No, neither is true.[/quote]

Philosophical hypotheses don't have to turn out to be true to be considered truth claims anymore than hypotheses about gravity.

You're kind of all over the place here and I'm not sure it's worthwhile to deconstruct it all.

Let me just say: the only reductionism going on here is your interpretation of my words.

The words don't contain the story though. Like proteins don't code for love. — Verdi

You're just looking at it backwards: the story contains the words. The capacity for love is constructed of proteins.

Is this true? Is it false? If it's true, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2" is true? — T Clark

The cogito is, as far as I am aware, the most indisputable truth there is. That was Descartes whole point.

Is "The truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world," a true statement? If so, is it true in the same sense that "Paris is the capital of France" is true? — T Clark

They're both true. But one is a definitional truth of a human construct: the Paris is the capital of France because humans invented both Paris and France and the idea of a capital.

The other is trying to make sense of objective, non-constructed reality and ourselves (not as constructs, but as objectively existing observers) therein.

Okay, so I see you do accept that Ethics uses facts in later posts on this thread, so I'll stick to responding to this:

I didn't say philosophy doesn't deal with facts and truth. I said philosophy does not deal with questions that have true or false answers. For example, from Wikipedia entry for Coherence Theory of Truth - "Truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole." This statement is about "truth," but, I claim at least, it is neither true nor false — T Clark

Let's just go back to absolute basics for a second:

Metaphysics and Epistemology ask, do I exist and how can I know I exist?

Descartes answers, I think, therefore I am.

What, if anything, is not dealing with true or false answers to you?

P.s. As for the coherence theory of truth... well, I give you the correspondence theory of truth:
The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world. (From the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia)

Coded in our DNA? Only proteins are encoded in DNA. — Verdi

That's kinda like retorting that books don't contain stories, they just contain letters from the alphabet.

I guess what I’m really asking is is there any objective discernible difference between the state of observing and the state of being observed. Are they entirely interchangeable. Is the rest of the universe simultaneously observing us just as we observe it?

Is “living” an actual unique state of the universe or is it simply fancy chemistry that we like to believe - from the inherent bias of being alive - as something special and different? — Benj96

Yes.
No.
No.
Both.

Let's start by saying an animal's natural instinct and sole purpose is to protect itself, where then animal's evolved to work with others as it ensured greater survival. This survival mechanism is seen today as society is founded on the principles of contributing and dwelling on making the world a better place for their own survival. Nonetheless, this is seen in relationships most importantly; friends are chosen on a basis of resembling similar or desired values, interests and attitudes. Yet, when a friend changes and no longer offers what they used to offer, its easy for them to be discarded immediately. This same discardment occurs between family members also. — obscurelaunting

Evolutionary theorists have long complicated the individualistic/selfish view of human evolution. Homo sapiens evolved to be a social animal.

Homo sapiens may forever wrestle with selfish survival versus social good, they're both innate forces embedded in our DNA.

:up:

I'm not sure what you're referring to as irrelevant, but commonly people add the adjectives "pink, invisible" to unicorn to emphasize it's non-existence, because (as you rightly note) it's logically impossible.

Unicorns don't exist either.

What a good thread! Definitely helps to try and clarify these things.

I think part of my contention you touch on when you wrestle with excluding Logic and Phil of Math (or Phil of any Science) from your list of philosophical subdisciplines. I'll stick to talking about Logic though, because I know it better than the others.

Logic is the foundation for the other subdisciplines. You can't do the others without knowing Logic. Even if you dislike Logic and think some of it is wrong or whatever, you have to use the rules of Logic to get anywhere analytically.

The rest of philosophy deals with facts and truth in varying degrees. I think it would be more helpful to think of it less as "either/or" and more as "both/and." Philosophy deals with, for example, values AND truth claims. Metaphysics deals generally more with claims that either are or aren't true, and Ethics less so.

There's also the part that philosophy draws on data from the world to make claims. Ethics could, to some degree, make subject-less claims I suppose. Ethics could try to talk about how we should treat pink, invisible unicorns. But for the most part it's making value claims about the real world based on data that is either true or false. Although you can't derive and ought from an is, you still use is's to continue argumentation.

1. You ought not kick sentient beings. (ought)
2. Pink, invisible unicorns are sentient beings. (is)
C. You ought not kick pink, invisible unicorns. (ought)

Note that--with the foundation of Logic! --this is a valid argument, but not a sound one. Replace pink, invisible unicorn with dog, and you've got a sound argument. Philosophy has built in mechanisms to discuss truth and falsity.

Note also, that the enlightenment drive to distinguish so clearly and absolutely between the disciplines is losing steam. There is a growing emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches to .... well, just about everything.

Ivory Tower racists like Murray always come off as urbane, sophisticated and even charming, bearing little-to-no resemblance to the usual mouth-breathing, rank-and-file, race-baiting haters who pump-up cable ratings and sell newspapers. — 180 Proof

Just read some excerpts of his ideas about low- versus high-IQ women having children ... and I don't think anyone in their right mind reads that and thinks it's urbane, sophisticated, or charming. It's just vile.

Is this a philosophy question?

:rofl:

Is THAT true or a fact??

So knowledge is whatever you say it is and since I don't agree that that's knowledge, then we can't have a conversation, therefore you are correct.

That's a tautology. — Manuel

I can't help myself: that's not an example of a tautology. It's an example of begging the question.

You can talk about truth or facts, but nothing you say will be true or a fact — T Clark

Is that true or a fact? :chin:

I've been thinking about this issue and your post set me thinking again. I have not been satisfied with my answers to why philosophy is different than science — T Clark

Hey, that's cool! Looking forward to your thoughts as they evolve and a new thread if you make one!

If these terms are so well defined, why the heck do people argue about them all the time? Do you see physicists arguing about what energy means or what inertia means? — Manuel

First of all: yes, even physicists and other scientists argue about terminology.
Second of all: Why? because ideas are expressed through terms and most philosophers are aware that we must get the vocabulary right in order to get the ideas right... otherwise they wouldn't bother arguing about them.

I didn't say that an idea or though is the same as belief, I said it could be substituted for the term idea or thought. — Manuel

All you're saying here is that we can substitute the word panda for cat even though they're not the same.

I don't have an obligation to entertain you, if you don't find my answers satisfying, that's your problem, not mine.

I don't find your arguments persuasive on this topic.

Go ahead and define these terms as you wish. I've had plenty of interesting conversations here with all kinds of people. But it's not going to please or be instructive to everybody, that's par for the course — Manuel

I'm not actually trying to be dismissive or negative, though of course criticism almost invariably comes across as such. Instead, I'm just stating a fact: if you don't understand the terms, then of course you can't be persuaded by the argument, because you can't understand the argument without understanding the terms. That's --oh the irony!-- both the impediment to you understanding me as well as the core issue I'm trying to explain. C'est la vie.

Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, as they say... someday, when you've wrapped your head around the basics, let me know! Then I'd be interested to see if you have some better arguments for your critiques of JTB.

I want to say that novelists, historians and philosophers can be very knowledgeable, as they are, without arbitrarily limiting the use of the word "knowledge" to mean, what exists absent us. — Manuel

First of all, philosophers spend a great deal of time trying to get their vocabulary right. I don't even understand how you (as someone who seems to have spent some time in academia) would come to dismiss the need for a clear and precise vocabulary in philosophy. Doesn't mean you can't revise the vocabulary, but you absolutely must be clear about what you're saying.

Additionally, an idea or a thought is not the same as a belief. You don't believe all the thoughts and ideas you have. Belief is a kind of thought or idea, namely one you think is true.

You can't both agree that we should be clear whether we are speaking of cats or pandas AND dismiss the need to be clear what we mean by "knowledge" or any other term in philosophy.

Second of all, JTB doesn't limit knowledge to mean what exists absent us. Knowledge is a particular kind of belief. Therefore it is very much something which can only exist in the mind. But it is a belief that is only then properly labeled as knowledge when and if it corresponds with the world "absent us" as you say.

I gotta admit, I'm becoming disappointed with this conversation. Based on the academic background you've suggested in your posts and profile, I'm not sure why there's this confusion about such really basic distinctions. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of your schooling, the courses you took, versus the kind of courses required in American and German colleges.

I don't see what is gained by insisting that knowledge must be thought of as so and so. The way I see it if that if we continue insisting on these criteria, we face the prospects of saying "We never had any knowledge of anything ever", because the details will change — Manuel

Well, by being clear and precise we get closer to actual truth and actual knowledge, for starters. Why do we define anything? So that we can put together coherent thoughts, build upon those thoughts, and share them with others. If I say cat and I mean panda and we're trying to have a conversation about pet keeping, you're a)going to get pretty confused really fast and b) the conversation is not going to go anywhere useful... up until the point of course we recognize our verbal misunderstanding, chuckle a bit about how silly we sounded, and THEN continue talking with a shared vocabulary.

And yeah, lots of what we think we know is going to be proven outright wrong or tweaked along the way someday. You seem... more uncomfortable with that notion than you seem to have an actual reasons to dispute it? But discomfort isn't a good reason to discount something.

I think it is more helpful to keep the distinction between mind-independent and mind-depedent instead of knowledge — Manuel

Why? Seems to me those are merely adjectives to describe knowledge.

Belief is rather English specific, it has strong religious connotations. — Manuel

In academic philosophy we don't use it with religious connotations.

As for other languages... well, I'm only bilingual and can't speak for the vast majority out there, but german shares the difference between "Glaube" and "Wissen." But more to the point, if other languages lack the specific ideas of "belief" versus "knowledge," then that alone doesn't change the validity of our definitions thereof. That is, after all, why languages borrow from another: to fill gaps and needs in their own language. English-speaking philosophy loves borrowing "Dasein" and "Weltanschauung" for example, and german philosophy likes "ecocriticism" and other english neologisms (german has a rich history in philosophy, so they didn't borrow much until more recently).

If you want to think of knowledge in this way, because it's useful to you, then by all means keep using it. — Manuel

Ah, the retreat back to relativism. "You do you" etc. But the slippery slope you mentioned earlier lies precisely IN relativism. Relativism inexorably leads down to nobody being able to make any truth claims or claims at all without getting themselves endlessly riddled in self-contradictions.

In short: it's the literal difference between something just being a belief and knowledge. This is literally WHY the definition includes a) justified and b)true. Knowledge is a KIND of belief, but not all beliefs are knowledge.

We can say that now. Back then they could not. It was the best theory they had for the time and not an unreasonable one at that, to me anyway. What would you expect them to say, "I believe the Earth is the center of the universe, but it is not true." — Manuel

Their beliefs about the world back then may have been reasonable enough for the time, but since they weren't true, they weren't knowledge. A person can believe to know something and be wrong. Just because you believe one of your beliefs is knowledge doesn't mean it is knowledge.

THUS you embrace fallibalism: I believe that I know certain things, but I also acknowledge that I might be wrong. In fact, I don't know about which of my knowledge claims I am wrong, or to which degree, but I'm pretty certain lots of the things I believe to know are not true and therefore not knowledge.

You were right to suggest we must believe things to even function. And as such, I am stuck believing things that I can be reasonably certain will be disproven someway somehow someday. But it's still NOT knowledge.

If a person claims to use personal experience as an argument for a truth claim about the world, I wouldn't accept it. But I cannot deny to such people that the experience they had is not true, if they limit it to experience alone, I don't have a problem.

Truths about the world are relative in a very different sense than personal truths. — Manuel

Well, we seem to agree mostly here.
Exactly: it IS true that a person has such and such experiences. But a person's experiences have no bearing on the reality of things. If someone took LSD and told you they saw a pink, invisible unicorn in your house, you can BOTH acknowledge that they TRULY had this mental experience AND that there is no actual pink, invisible unicorn. They do know that they had an experience of a pink, invisible unicorn. They do not know that there IS a pink, invisible unicorn.

Also, I find it interesting that you seem to be doing a 180 here from your statements in another thread:

Subjective experiences are not evidential, not admissible in the Court of Mikey as evidence; the only evidence which is admissible is objective in nature, and perceptible by those other than the claimant.
— Michael Zwingli

I agree.

Many people do not. You hear people speaking of "my truth" or "it's true to me" all the time. Yeah, such statements aren't suitable for logic, given the context. But people will continue to use it as evidence. — Manuel

So which is it? Do you agree or disagree that truth is relative?

It would have been knowledge for them, I don't see why not. — Manuel

Because it isn't true. The earth is not actually the center of the universe and nothing they believe would make it so.

Not even Gettier challenged the idea that knowledge has to at least be objectively true!

Replying to both:

If you don't have any recourse for better data, I don't see why you wouldn't have beliefs you take to be true. What's the alternative? Have no beliefs? That's just not possible. — Manuel

and

That makes no sense at all. — Manuel

Sure it does. Once you realize that belief is not the same as knowledge. Belief is just one of the three components of knowledge. It is necessary but not sufficient.

I cannot give you a thorough justification of anything. — Manuel

Well, then I don't have much reason to believe your statement and neither do you.

That's surely JTB and knowledge for that time. We would not call it knowledge today. — Manuel

Why in the world would that be JTB? It's not true and it's not justified. Just because someone believes their beliefs to be true and justified doesn't make it so.

But what about our beliefs now? They could be rendered false in a few decades. So we would have no knowledge. — Manuel

Yep.