30 May 09
There is a thread in the debates forum,"Rights are granted by others...", that is interesting but bothers me on a certain level. I asked for scientific proof of (for lack of a better term) the natural born rights of a human. the response was to be ignored or given an argument, that while filled with famous philosophers names, seemed to be a "faith based" argument. I took several low and high level philosophy classes in college and found them all to be a pile of dung. Yet I have this knee jerk reaction to many things I do not understand. I guess my basic questions are...
Is philosophy considered a hard science?
Do I need to read more and pull my head out of my hinney?
Or is philosophy like free jazz, people claim to understand it, but its just a bunch of noise?
30 May 09
If natural human rights can be taken away, then what's the use in claiming that they exist? Human rights are society imposed by people who have the power to enforce them. It is as simple as that.
If another group has the power to take them away, then they no longer exist. For historical examples see how the Nazis treated the Jews as well as other minorities such as Gypsies.
31 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by StTito…Is philosophy considered a hard science?
There is a thread in the debates forum,"Rights are granted by others...", that is interesting but bothers me on a certain level. I asked for scientific proof of (for lack of a better term) the natural born rights of a human. the response was to be ignored or given an argument, that while filled with famous philosophers names, seemed to be a "faith based" argu ...[text shortened]... is philosophy like free jazz, people claim to understand it, but its just a bunch of noise?
..…
By “hard science” I presume you mean “real science”.
-I can answer this:
It depends on what kind of ‘philosophy’ you are referring to;
For example, if you are talking about either “scientific philosophy” or “mathematical philosophy” then I think the answer is generally yes!
That is because scientific methods or at least truly logical reasoning can be applied to these things to rationally form conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Mathematical_Philosophy
But if you are talking about “moral philosophy” then the answer is definitely NO!
This is because you cannot logically deduce any moral hypothesis using any deductive logic/inductive logic/observation/experiment nor by ANY scientific means. Neither science nor any truly rational thought has anything to say about “morality” or “morally right” or “morally wrong” or “ethics” etc.
Confusingly, you may sometimes here the term “the science of ethics” used which clearly implies that ‘ethics’ can be a science! But don’t be fooled by that! The “the science of ethics” is both a pseudoscience and a self contradiction in name!
31 May 09
Originally posted by coquette6 I think
How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb?
Think about it.
One to hold on to the lightbulb , 4 to spin the table (on wich the first is standing) and one to rotate in the oposite direction so the others wont get dizzy.
I got a better one : How many misogins does it take to change a lightbulb.
Sorry for my bad english . Peace!
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by StTitoThat's why Bentham called natural rights theory 'nonsense on stilts'.
There is a thread in the debates forum,"Rights are granted by others...", that is interesting but bothers me on a certain level. I asked for scientific proof of (for lack of a better term) the natural born rights of a human. the response was to be ignored or given an argument, that while filled with famous philosophers names, seemed to be a "faith based" argument.
01 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by StTitoPhilosophy is thinking about thinking ... Some people are compelled to do it. You might be interested in looking at the philosophy of science ... It will lead you to The Questions that Science Cannot Answer (shudder) ...
Is philosophy considered a hard science?
Edit: Your childish vendetta against free jazz is noted.
01 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage…It will lead you to The Questions that Science Cannot Answer (shudder)
Philosophy is thinking about thinking ... Some people are compelled to do it. You might be interested in looking at the philosophy of science ... It will lead you to The Questions that Science Cannot Answer (shudder) ...
Edit: Your childish vendetta against free jazz is noted.
…
That may sometimes be true for epistemology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
But not necessarily true for most other areas of scientific philosophy because most (but not all) types generally don’t have a lot to do with the limits of our scientific knowledge but rather various other aspects of science.
I am curious to know why the “(shudder)”?
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagethanks for the reading suggestion, and get a sense of humor.
Philosophy is thinking about thinking ... Some people are compelled to do it. You might be interested in looking at the philosophy of science ... It will lead you to The Questions that Science Cannot Answer (shudder) ...
Edit: Your childish vendetta against free jazz is noted.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by StTitoPhilosophy is not science!
There is a thread in the debates forum,"Rights are granted by others...", that is interesting but bothers me on a certain level. I asked for scientific proof of (for lack of a better term) the natural born rights of a human. the response was to be ignored or given an argument, that while filled with famous philosophers names, seemed to be a "faith based" argu ...[text shortened]... is philosophy like free jazz, people claim to understand it, but its just a bunch of noise?
Science is a method. Generate Hypothesis -> Design Experiment -> Test -> Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one.
Philosophy is not amenable to this method. Logic is not science but rather a mode of thought that enables us to think rationally about a particular topic. One may use logic to arrive at hypotheses, but logic is not science either.
Philosophy, by its very nature, does not fit the narrow definition of science.
02 Jun 09
6 edits
Originally posted by kyngj…Science is a method. Generate Hypothesis -> Design Experiment -> Test -> Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one.
Philosophy is not science!
Science is a method. Generate Hypothesis -> Design Experiment -> Test -> Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one.
Philosophy is not amenable to this method. Logic is not science but rather a mode of thought that enables us to think rationally about a particular topic. One may use logic to arrive at hypotheses, but logic ...[text shortened]... cience either.
Philosophy, by its very nature, does not fit the narrow definition of science.
…
Why can’t each of those stages be applied to scientific philosophy?
Generate a philosophical hypothesis -> design a thought experiment -> test the hypothesis by performing the thought experiment -> Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one depending on the result of the test.
-after all, this is what can be done in the science of mathematics and, just like in the science of mathematics, the experiment doesn’t have to be a physical one.
But here is a real-life example of that in scientific philosophy:
Form the philosophical hypothesis that all mathematical truths can be defined using purely none mathematical truths -> design a thought experiment simply consisting of trying to define all mathematical truths using purely none mathematical truths -> test the hypothesis by attempting to carry out this thought experiment ->Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one depending on the result of the test -in this case the test was positive thus accept the hypothesis.
These stages was actually done by Bertrand Russell to create his Principia Mathematica which is considered to be part of a branch of scientific philosophy called mathematical philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
Of course, this cannot be applied to moral philosophy because although you can always generate a ‘moral’ hypothesis, there would be no experiment nor observation that could possibly either prove or disprove it thus moral philosophy can never be a part of science.
02 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think this answers StTito's question quite well (shudder). But we're not going defenestrate moral philosophy (otherwise known as ethics) because it doesn't fit in with science, are we?
Of course, this cannot be applied to moral philosophy because although you can always generate a ‘moral’ hypothesis, there would be no experiment nor observation that could possibly either prove or disprove it thus moral philosophy can never be a part of science.
Russell's chum Wittgenstein was fascinating on the subject of ethics.