Page 447 of 447 FirstFirst ... 347397437445446447
Results 13,381 to 13,386 of 13386

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #13381
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,515
    Maybe philosophizing about philosophy is really metaphilosophy, so there isn't a problem.

  2. #13382
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,756
    Metaphilosophy is clearly philosophy, just like theorems about math are also math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    I'm also philosophizing if I say that philosophy has value, so all I'm really saying is that philosophy has value if philosophy has value.
    The issue is not whether philosophy has no value (that's up to the individual), it's whether or not it can be logically argued that it has no value. That argument is what is logically specious, by Aristotle's proof. Yet many, poor at logic, attempt the argument all the same. You can see it every time you encounter the phrases "navel gazing" or "just semantics"-- whenever I see those words, I know I am looking at the specious argument yet again. Only when one is not compelled by logic may one may pick and choose when to be unbothered by blatant contradictions.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Sep-30 at 12:37 PM.

  3. #13383
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    436
    I came across an interesting article about myths and the future of science that is interesting reading.

    https://theconversation.com/science-...-thrive-124214
    In my own life, the popular myths of great scientists fed a culture that cherished curiosity as a good all on its own. We need to develop these stories, curating them by selecting those that are appropriate and developing new ones that make useful points. As scientists, with a commitment to the truth, we should also ensure that they are accurate representations of reality that also reflect the collective endeavour, rather than the supposed genius of a few white men.

    All cultures need their myths, and each lab needs its lore.

  4. #13384
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,756
    It's really no different from giving Napolean sole credit for conquering Europe in early 1800 or Hitler sole blame for the atrocities of the 1940s. We seek to simplify the story by picking a few key figures and pretending they did everything, completely ignoring all the inputs they took from others, and all the complicities of others, all along the way. It's more about how we do history than how we do science.

  5. #13385
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,683
    If you look at the intellectual shift from proving or finding truth toward failure to disprove or falsify an hypothesis, as suggested by Karl Popper, who i think called himself a philosopher, then the role of philosophy becomes clear as a starting point in science rather than armchair musings. It seems to me that Popper is not universally accepted but supports the MDR hypothesis.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  6. #13386
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,756
    Yes, people always tend toward the most simplistic, even naive, interpretations of everything. So when interpreting science, we always hear about the "search for truth" or the "ultimate answer", when actually science just doesn't work that way at all. Instead, it is about making working hypotheses that hold up for awhile in various contexts, until we find their weaknesses (via falsification) and are thus inspired to create better hypotheses. Notice I never mentioned "truth" at all! Now, of course we don't want to have to run from that word, we do want to have a sense that we are making progress, and that our scientific claims of today are "much more true" than what the ancient Greeks thought, for example. But what this actually requires is a more sophisticated understanding of the entire concept of "scientific truth" than what most people, quite frankly, are willing to embark on. Instead, we often see language that actually seems to imagine that although science has been a process throughout history, for some reason today it is a destination. Since the ancient Greeks would also have thought that, this attitude would seem to be an area where we have made quite minimal progress.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •