Take A Penny, Leave A Penny

[The Good Reverend Roger]

My thoughts:  Philosophy is crap.

What about where science and philosophy overlap?

What, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"?

Science is an idea, just saying.

Nope.  It's a method.

Science, properly done, says "this is what we have observed the universe doing".

Philosophy, commonly done, says "this is what the universe should be doing".

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

My thoughts:  Philosophy is crap.

What about where science and philosophy overlap?

What, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"?

Science is an idea, just saying.

Nope.  It's a method.

Science, properly done, says "this is what we have observed the universe doing".

Philosophy, commonly done, says "this is what the universe should be doing".

It's a method based in empirical philosophy.

Science also makes predictions about what the universe should be doing, based on observations.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

My thoughts:  Philosophy is crap.

What about where science and philosophy overlap?

What, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"?

Science is an idea, just saying.

Nope.  It's a method.

Science, properly done, says "this is what we have observed the universe doing".

Philosophy, commonly done, says "this is what the universe should be doing".

It's a method based in empirical philosophy.

Science also makes predictions about what the universe should be doing, based on observations.

Sure.  But those predictions are garbage until tested.

I maintain that science is a process, not an idea.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

My thoughts:  Philosophy is crap.

What about where science and philosophy overlap?

What, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"?

Science is an idea, just saying.

Nope.  It's a method.

Science, properly done, says "this is what we have observed the universe doing".

Philosophy, commonly done, says "this is what the universe should be doing".

It's a method based in empirical philosophy.

Science also makes predictions about what the universe should be doing, based on observations.

Sure.  But those predictions are garbage until tested.

I maintain that science is a process, not an idea.

I'm sticking with science being a process of honing ideas about the universe.

[Telarus]

Science is well monitored feedback loops. Ideas about Proccesses.

[Phox]

My thoughts:

I'm a little embarrassed to comprehend most of the OP.

What specific teleological arguments do you reject?

Me specifically? Pretty much anything that isn't observable, or perhaps rationally derived from observation (i.e human behavior).

Lucretius? The Stoic and Platonic ideas that there is some sort of divine will or goal that all things were striving towards.

Hobbes? Basically the same thing that Lucretius was rejecting.

Lucretius' position was that pursuing peaceful living and tranquility was the only worthwhile pursuit, and speculating and inventing things like "gods" and "forms" was pointless and dangerous, in that it merely lead to needless complications like appeasing the gods or trying to obtain a facsimile of this perfect form. Eating, breathing, sleeping, fucking, and being healthy were the important things for a person.

Hobbes' was a political philosopher and was pretty much observing that people are 1) stupid and B) assholes. He also encouraged people to reject the authority of... well, authors and when confronted with an issue they should think it through for themselves and figure it out based on their own observations. He said that people who accept the word of others with out first thinking through what they were saying (on any topic, mind you), are so much worse than people who were simply ignorant of the topic completely.

Hobbes, writing in the mid 1600s, was a strong supporter of science, as it was being developed. He was a big fan of knowledge, and supported it. Lucretius, on the other hand, not as big on knowledge or science (granted, the definition of "science" in 55 BCE is not the same thing), unless it was for explaining away things that people feared (because fear was the biggest thing that prevented people from enjoying the simple pleasures of life).

Maybe that's a bit more oversimplified than i'd like, but that's essentially the thought process that was behind the OP.

In regards to Roger and ECH: Yup, science is the way to go. Teleological, ontological, and metaphysical crap is mostly useless in a practical sense. I do see value in epistemology (to an extent) and certainly in ethical and moral thought, and as far as that goes, Hobbes is definitely worthwhile, and Lucretius is an enjoyable poet, if nothing else.

[Placid Dingo]

While I'm not familiar enough to add much, I was under the impressiOn Plato and Aristotle weren't usually lumped together on account of disagreeing fairly seriously on fundamental issues.

[Scribbly]

Re: OP - Sounds about right. In my Political Philosophy classes, the professor basically said that if you go back to ancient greece, you can find a philosopher who approximates almost any other viewpoint which has arisen since. We've basically been having the same discussion for thousands of years, with people falling on one side or the other.

I disagree that nothing worthwhile has been said since, but I think you can trace most arguments back to that point, probably because they were the first bunch of people to sit around discussing it and writing it down so that we could come along later, dig it up and go 'wow, dude.'

My thoughts:  Philosophy is crap.

Philosophy is useful for discussing how things should be, and there are things which are largely defined by how we choose to make them.

I agree that when you want to know about what is 'out there' and physically exists in reality, science is the way to go and the philosophy of science (ontology and epistomology) is the extent to which philosophy can help out there.

When you start discussing how societies should be formed, how people should behave in relation to one another and other questions along those lines, you need philosophy to provide an overall framework for discussion. If you don't, you wind up with economics and utilitarianism; rationalist attempts to apply universal laws to situations which cannot be judged universally.

Political Science is a god-damn mess because of this attempt to make everything scientific and testable, when human beings are fundamentally irrational and most political decisions are taken on subjective grounds. I don't know enough about them to say conclusively, but I would be willing to guess that there's similar issues in other social sciences.

[Triple Zero]

My thoughts:  Philosophy is crap.

What about where science and philosophy overlap?

What, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"?

Science is an idea, just saying.

Nope.  It's a method.

Science, properly done, says "this is what we have observed the universe doing".

Philosophy, commonly done, says "this is what the universe should be doing".

It's a method based in empirical philosophy.

Science also makes predictions about what the universe should be doing, based on observations.

Sure.  But those predictions are garbage until tested.

I maintain that science is a process, not an idea.

I'm sticking with science being a process of honing ideas about the universe.

What you guys are doing now, is discussing the philosophy of science. Just sayin'.

[LMNO]

While doing research on Lucretius, the thought occurred to me that the Epicurean (or specifically Lucretian) rejection of the Platonic/Aristotelian teleological arguments and the atomist's mechanical explanation seems to be fairly close to Hobbes' rejection of the religious dogma in the wake of the Scientific Revolution and his desire for an empirical, mechanical explanation of phenomena. Of course, my own bias towards observable data and scientific rationality might explain why I identify so strongly with these two authors.

Penny for your thoughts?

Sounds like they're both saying Think For Yourself.  Which is almost never a bad thing.

[Phox]

While doing research on Lucretius, the thought occurred to me that the Epicurean (or specifically Lucretian) rejection of the Platonic/Aristotelian teleological arguments and the atomist's mechanical explanation seems to be fairly close to Hobbes' rejection of the religious dogma in the wake of the Scientific Revolution and his desire for an empirical, mechanical explanation of phenomena. Of course, my own bias towards observable data and scientific rationality might explain why I identify so strongly with these two authors.

Penny for your thoughts?

Sounds like they're both saying Think For Yourself.  Which is almost never a bad thing.

Well, Lucretius was more about letting Epicurus do the thinking for you, but fuck what those other guys are telling you. Hobbes was definitely a TYF,S kinda guy though.


In an unrelated thought, I watched a French surrealist film the other day (Last Year in Marienbad, to be specific). I'd never seen the film before, but it struck me as odd. The main character was obsessed with this woman with whom he was convinced he had an affair the previous year, and he kept following her around and harassing her about it. The surrealist aspect was in the cinematography more than the dialogue, but the narrative was also non-linear, or so it seemed. I also felt like the film was perpetuating rape culture, but I was wondering if any of you spags had seen the film and what you made of it?

[Kai]

My thoughts:  Philosophy is crap.

What about where science and philosophy overlap?

What, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"?

Science is an idea, just saying.

Nope.  It's a method.

Science, properly done, says "this is what we have observed the universe doing".

Philosophy, commonly done, says "this is what the universe should be doing".

There are two camps in "philosophy of science", which would be better called "meta-science". One was forwarded by Karl Popper, is primarily concerned with how science /should/ be conducted. The other, forwarded by Thomas Kuhn, is concerned more with how science is /actually done/ by people, regardless of the first. The former could be considered a mixture of epistemology and ethics, the latter is more of descriptive metaphysics.

The point being, that unanimous "method" that you ascribe to science is a mixture of hypotheticodeductive method (usually called THE scientific method), problem solving, strong inference, and that's just within a single paradigm. Popper completely rejected induction which is one of the strongest, most important tools for revolutionary changes in knowledge. Deduction wouldn't have worked to devise natural selection, because it only works from general rules to particular details, and not the other way around. There are multiple methods involved, because different people have different /ideas/ of the best way to, not only go about testing hypotheses, but making discoveries not considered under the current paradigm.

And this is why we need meta-science.

[Epimetheus]

My thoughts:  Philosophy is crap.
...

Science, properly done, says "this is what we have observed the universe doing".

Philosophy, commonly done, says "this is what the universe should be doing".

To be fair, that's only one branch of philosophy. That said, without it values can't be justified. Surely you don't lack all ideas of should and shouldn't?