"I think science should be more philosophical"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2012, 04:23 AM
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
(22-04-2012 02:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Come on, you don't feel even a little regret from a 'kill -9' on a process? What if you'd been training Moses or Joshua for a week or two before you realized you fucked up the configuration? Gotta feel some pity, no?

True. Every time that happens, I die a little inside. But mostly because I wasted two weeks. Computer Linguists are cold-hearted bastards.

I think Philosophy, in the traditional sense, is maybe even a first attempt at science. After all, we do call our degrees Philosophy Diplomas even though they are science diplomas, This is because traditionally all fields other than theology and medicine were known as "philosophy". Today, evidence-based science has replaced most of Philosophy and all that remains is what we consider as modern philosophy and logic. Science is still the best way we have to answer questions. Once we have those answers, philosophy won't be needed any more than theology is.
(So says the herd of nearsighted nerds, don't mind us Tongue)

"But the point is, find somebody to love. Everything else is overrated." - HouseofCantor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Smooshmonster's post
23-04-2012, 04:32 AM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2012 04:36 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
(23-04-2012 01:06 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Philosophy is way bigger than just theology which is imo the bastard daughter of philosophy, the big questions science tries to answer are all in a way philosophical (what's the origin of everything, what's the nature of time and space, etc) so philosophy IS in science, it's everywhere on science.

Theology is smoke and mirrors.

[Image: avatar_17307.jpg?dateline=1329566512] [Image: avatar_17860.jpg?dateline=1332733489]

Homo Sapiens, (the Pink Monkey) is the "pattern seeking" monkey. What IS it about atheism, I'm missing here ? Dodgy

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 04:36 AM
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
(23-04-2012 04:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-04-2012 01:06 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Philosophy is way bigger than just theology which is imo the bastard daughter of philosophy, the big questions science tries to answer are all in a way philosophical (what's the origin of everything, what's the nature of time and space, etc) so philosophy IS in science, it's everywhere on science.

Theology is smoke and mirrors.
[Image: avatar_17307.jpg?dateline=1329566512] [Image: avatar_17860.jpg?dateline=1332733489]

Homo Sapiens, (the Pink Monkey) is the "pattern seeking" monkey. What IS it about atheism, I'm missing here ? Dodgy
it safer for humans not to meddle in cowish affairs Drinking Beverage

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 04:42 AM
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
(23-04-2012 04:36 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(23-04-2012 04:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Theology is smoke and mirrors.
[Image: avatar_17307.jpg?dateline=1329566512] [Image: avatar_17860.jpg?dateline=1332733489]

Homo Sapiens, (the Pink Monkey) is the "pattern seeking" monkey. What IS it about atheism, I'm missing here ? Dodgy
it safer for humans not to meddle in cowish affairs Drinking Beverage

And the Bovine Pope thinks we're just supposed take that on faith ? It's the cud, right. Is it the cud ? Or is it the pies ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-04-2012, 08:30 AM
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
Get your mom on here and I will give her an intellectually verbal smackdown of olympic proportions.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 08:39 AM
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
While I think that smart philisophical arguments can be conclusive I don't feel that they are required or even needed to draw logical conclusions from oberservation and testing. Epicurus makes great points and logically concludes that god doesn't exist but he certainly doesn't prove god doesn't exist.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 08:44 AM
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
(23-04-2012 08:30 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Get your mom on here and I will give her an intellectually verbal smackdown of olympic proportions.
I would just give her a spankdown of Olympic proportions.

[Image: opforum1.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 08:47 AM
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
(23-04-2012 04:23 AM)Smooshmonster Wrote:  Science is still the best way we have to answer questions. Once we have those answers, philosophy won't be needed any more than theology is.
I wouldn't go that far. Philosophy is probably the most important discipline.


(23-04-2012 08:47 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(23-04-2012 04:23 AM)Smooshmonster Wrote:  Science is still the best way we have to answer questions. Once we have those answers, philosophy won't be needed any more than theology is.
I wouldn't go that far. Philosophy is probably the most important discipline.
I found the quote I was looking for regarding the value of philosophy.

"Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good." - Bertrand Russell

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TrulyX's post
26-04-2012, 03:47 PM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2012 03:50 PM by Luminon.)
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
I know what these sentiments mean. Science is a strict, austere process of catching knowledge through a certain sieve of scientific method. Lots of knowledge falls through unnoticed, but what the hell, we don't have a better instrument anyway. The solid results are what counts.

The pattern-matching engine within us wants more than that, it wants to control even the knowledge on which the scientific method won't give us a solid grip, yet.
There are also non-scientific methods of obtaining knowledge and I use them as often as I can, because scientific method is too damn expensive and diffcult, the goal being something objectively tangible and controllable, which is way beyond me. Instead I get personal knowledge from tried and true sources that is useful for my personal activities. It's as good as useless for other people, but what the hell, no method is perfect. The trick is to be really good at pattern matching, being able to tell which patterns are self-consistent, non-contradictory or even supported by external patterns. What is superfluous and what isn't and most importantly, when some people are just playing on your feelings and pulling your leg or selling old things as new.

There is nothing wrong with classical philosophy and study of logic, if you don't get too caught in it. Even the pure philosophers managed to figure out much real stuff from physics, without means of testing.
(22-04-2012 06:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...or just give her a book about rocks, or Bonobo Apes, or Dolphin cognition, and approach the subject in a sneaky, oblique way. Tongue
Not Bonobo apes. They're something you don't want your mother to read about, pretty much like hippie swinger pimp tribe. They're a living evidence that evolution makes your mind dirty. Not a good place for Christians to start learning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 11:04 PM
RE: "I think science should be more philosophical"
(23-04-2012 04:23 AM)Smooshmonster Wrote:  I think Philosophy, in the traditional sense, is maybe even a first attempt at science.
...
(So says the herd of nearsighted nerds, don't mind us Tongue)

That's ass backwards. Science is at best a first attempt at philosophy. ... Hugs, I got hugs. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: