Science vs. Philosophy

[Wordy]

But I find it sad or disturbing that he drag pragmatism into it.

But I could support what he writes here:

... perhaps naturalists especially should get out of the metaphysical game.

We should not present an alternative set of declarations about what is really Real (whatever that might mean) but stop engaging in that kind of talk altogether.

More ordinary and scientific senses of small-r reality are good enough, and it makes perfectly good sense to talk of the supernatural and the transcendent having no part in that small-r reality, as best as we can tell by getting out of our armchairs and investigating things.

So at the least, speaking of metaphysical naturalism is overly restrictive.

At worst, it risks portraying naturalism as yet another doctrine metaphysicians pull out of thin air. So we should, perhaps, be some variety of naturalist, but not necessarily metaphysical naturalists.

If he goes from metaphysics into pragmatism then he goes from ashes into fire and maybe even the explosion of post -modernism when the fire has get the heat going. :)

I think we need to stay on a functional social psychology and individual psychology level with evidence based science research in what it is like to be a human being.

Like Frans de Waal study monkeys and apes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal

To study actual behavior and not what people say cause what they say is most likely a part of the indoctrination and political spin on what is supposed to be proper to say in that situation.

Like when they ask politicians about God. Very few politicians would admit they have no relation to spirituality or God. In US it is expected of them to be positive to people of faith.

In Communist and Socialist countries some 30 years ago it was the opposite. They had to keep such secret to be able to stay high up in hierarchy.

So such things are highly dependent on the political agenda at power for the moment the zeitgeist at the time of research.

body language on video is much more reliable. sure people are able to fake such too if they badly want to conform to outer norms but very many show very openly in body language that they are going to church more because their hierarchical role is to defend it and that their body betray that they are not really 100% in it from own inner motivation. They are opportunistic in that they know it helps their biz to be seen as a law abiding citizen and when put in front of a scientist with a questionare they give the answers that is expected of them. So such is so unreliable.

Apart from that metaphysics is not what most people are well versed in so it is kind of futile for us atheists to force metaphysical naturalism on an academic level down the new atheists throats.

I knew me to be a strong atheist at ten years old and I needed know metaphysics to know it. William Craig and other Christian apologetics use it cause it is so easy to show other Christians how he win the emotional debate even when he lose the formal academic debate.

He win cause it feels right for the believers even when the atheist think they won it all. This strategy they have of winning by losing the debate is disastrous for us atheists. We lose more potential atheists that way then we gain new atheists who are into metaphysics.

So I see Frans de Waal to have a better approach. But sure me could be wrong.

His (Frans de Waal) contributions include the interpretation of scientific research into the roots of compassion, altruism, and peaceful human relationships. Besides being a contributor, de Waal, also has an article on Empathy in Greater Good magazine.

"I've argued that many of what philosophers call moral sentiments can be seen in other species. In chimpanzees and other animals, you see examples of sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules.

[Preno]

Like Frans de Waal study monkeys and apes.What do primates have to do with the subject at hand? :confused:

[Wordy]

Preno, seen as you portray it now I could agree but I tried to get this he wrote.

Apparently this blog is centered on metaphysical naturalism.

What if you're a naturalist who is suspicious of any and all metaphysical enterprises,
and who is inclined to think that most of what goes on in the philosophy of religion
is so much wheel-spinning? Someone like me, in other words.


So I proposed that the way forward is to do as Frans de Waal do but on humans. To advance in our knowledge what it is like to be a human we have to stop leaning on Philosophy to give us answers and instead lean on evidence based science.

To stop speculating and instead do meticioulous study and models of what is really going on among us humans.

I cited the progress they have done. Philosophy has been tackling these problems since thousands of years and not presented any progress as far as I know.

Game Theory has and Evolutionary Psychology has and Ethology has advanced but has philosophy made any good model the last 50 years?

[Preno]

So I proposed that the way forward is to do as Frans de Waal do but on humans. To advance in our knowledge what it is like to be a human we have to stop leaning on Philosophy to give us answers and instead lean on evidence based science.

To stop speculating and instead do meticioulous study and models of what is really going on among us humans.

I cited the progress they have done. Philosophy has been tackling these problems since thousands of years and not presented any progress as far as I know.I still don't quite see what "we should learn more about human behaviour" has to do with the subject, which is metaphysical naturalism. But I I am only making the situation worse by contributing to this derail.
Game Theory has and Evolutionary Psychology has and Ethology has advanced but has philosophy made any good model the last 50 years?I thought you just said it isn't the business of philosophy to make such models?

[Quizalufagus]

So I proposed that the way forward is to do as Frans de Waal do but on humans. To advance in our knowledge what it is like to be a human we have to stop leaning on Philosophy to give us answers and instead lean on evidence based science.

To stop speculating and instead do meticioulous study and models of what is really going on among us humans.

I cited the progress they have done. Philosophy has been tackling these problems since thousands of years and not presented any progress as far as I know.

Game Theory has and Evolutionary Psychology has and Ethology has advanced but has philosophy made any good model the last 50 years?

There are some problems that science simply isn't equipped to tackle--questions about logic, about epistemology, and so forth. How could science possibly ever say whether the scientific method is epistemically valid, for example? The question at hand--whether metaphysical naturalism is the correct position--also can't be answered by science as far as I can tell.

[Wordy]

But that gives nobody the right to talk bad about science and to use every opportunity to hunt science.

Philosophy has no answer either but they pretend to. They behave like a religion that makes claims about God. That is how I see them. During the last 50 years me have looked at Philosophy I don't remember they have done a bit while science has made progress after progress.

Still philosophy is used against science again and again. Its a shame.

[dug_down_deep]

Evidence?

[Wordy]

Yes I know that is expected of somebody who makes claims.

I've seen these evidence for over 50 years but I am not on that level of rhetoric that I could satisfy you and others obviously.

I hope those more qualified than me gives these evidence in other fora like conferences and papers in known science journals.

But all my experience tells me that for those who don't want to see it no matter how much such evidence we give they would not be able to see it ever.

That is life!

[Quizalufagus]

But that gives nobody the right to talk bad about science and to use every opportunity to hunt science.

Philosophy has no answer either but they pretend to. They behave like a religion that makes claims about God. That is how I see them. During the last 50 years me have looked at Philosophy I don't remember they have done a bit while science has made progress after progress.

Still philosophy is used against science again and again. Its a shame.

What is the standard of progress you're applying to philosophy? I see quite a bit of progress in philosophy looking back on the last hundred years or so. What sort of progress do you want to see?

[Wordy]

Some kind of evidence. Not important in something special but why not what was so popular in IIDB. Mind body which I see as a false dichotomy and one reason me are so skeptical to it. I mean all the people who stand up and support David Chalmers.

I see no evidence for him having anything to say about mind body. To me it is all a construct due to him good at rhetoric.

Maybe the post-modernism is more important but mind body seems to be kind of related.

Two front attack with same agenda as it looks like to me.

[dug_down_deep]

Some kind of evidence. Not important in something special but why not what was so popular in IIDB. Mind body which I see as a false dichotomy and one reason me are so skeptical to it. I mean all the people who stand up and support David Chalmers.
I agree that mind/body is a false dichotomy.

Chalmers put forward his ideas, which were based on mostly logic (though with some intuition, which is largely what he's criticized for), and put those ideas out there for others in the philosophical and scientific communities to attack. Which they did.

[Preno]

Some kind of evidence. Not important in something special but why not what was so popular in IIDB. Mind body which I see as a false dichotomy and one reason me are so skeptical to it. I mean all the people who stand up and support David Chalmers.

I see no evidence for him having anything to say about mind body. To me it is all a construct due to him good at rhetoric.So basically you're saying that 20th century philosophy made no progress because you disagree with some dude on mind/body? :dunno:

[Wordy]

Preno you have humor. Lol.

[Quizalufagus]

I don't think he's joking. :p I also don't think you really answered my question. What specifically would count as philosophical progress in your mind? What unsolved philosophical problem would you like to see solved, and what sort of solution needs to be presented to count as progress?

[Wordy]

what is it about this text I gave that is not enough for you then?
Some kind of evidence. Not important in something special but why not what was so popular in IIDB. Mind body which I see as a false dichotomy and one reason me are so skeptical to it. I mean all the people who stand up and support David Chalmers.

I see no evidence for him having anything to say about mind body. To me it is all a construct due to him good at rhetoric.

Maybe the post-modernism is more important but mind body seems to be kind of related.

Two front attack with same agenda as it looks like to me.

Maybe post-modernism is the most important. But in IIDB the mind body kept us going longer so not sure why that one was so engaging. Beam me up Scotty and similar threads. what was it 5000 posts? 50 pages or so.

[Wordy]

We derail from this Taner Edis OP. I start a new thread. I try to get back here and tell how to find it so my posts are not derailing more. But my experience is that if I start it then nobody participate in it. But I try anyway.

[Quizalufagus]

I don't understand your point. You want a solution to the mind-body problem? Well, in my view (a view which is shared by most philosophers) the mind/body problem has largely been solved. There are not separate mental and physical substances; the mind arises from physical processes. How does Chalmers' apparent disagreement suggest that the progress hasn't been made on this problem?

[Quizalufagus]

We derail from this Taner Edis OP. I start a new thread. I try to get back here and tell how to find it so my posts are not derailing more. But my experience is that if I start it then nobody participate in it. But I try anyway.

No need to start a new thread. I'll split this one.

[Quizalufagus]

This thread is a split from here (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=574).

[trendkill]

Maybe post-modernism is the most important. But in IIDB the mind body kept us going longer so not sure why that one was so engaging. Beam me up Scotty and similar threads. what was it 5000 posts? 50 pages or so.Beam Me Up, Scotty! wasn't a debate over the mind/body dichotomy. As I recall, everyone in that thread was accusing their opponents of believing in souls or immaterial selves while asserting their own materialism.

[kennethamy]

edited

[kennethamy]

[QUOTE=Wordy;17391]But that gives nobody the right to talk bad about science and to use every opportunity to hunt science.

Philosophy has no answer either but they pretend to. They behave like a religion that makes claims about God. That is how I see them. During the last 50 years me have looked at Philosophy I don't remember they have done a bit while science has made progress after progress.

Still philosophy is used against science again and again. Its a shame.

What is the standard of progress you're applying to philosophy? I see quite a bit of progress in philosophy looking back on the last hundred years or so. What sort of progress do you want to see?

It seems to me that what constitutes progress in philosophy is an important philosophical question. And it may be that the clarification of issues is one kind of progress (which philosophy shares with science) and showing that a philosophical problem is really the consequence of confusion is another kind of progress. Not that there has not also been actual solution of philosophical problems: as, for instance, what we are saying when we say of something that it exists, or that it does not exist.

[Wordy]

What did science say about the Beam me up Scotty thought experiment?

[dug_down_deep]

I don't understand your point. You want a solution to the mind-body problem? Well, in my view (a view which is shared by most philosophers) the mind/body problem has largely been solved. There are not separate mental and physical substances; the mind arises from physical processes. How does Chalmers' apparent disagreement suggest that the progress hasn't been made on this problem?
I know it's OT, but Chalmers does not apparently disagree that the mind arises from physical processes.

[Quizalufagus]

I'm unclear on what exactly his positions is. He ostensibly rejects physicalism via the qualia route, so he seems to be some sort of dualist.

[Wordy]

From the IIDB thread I vaguely remember we actually had a citation on what his view is but typical of me I've forgotten. was it some kind of information monism? All that exists is information and that is monism and only dualistic in appearance? The information appear as physical things? A kind of illusion cause deep down it is all changes in the monolitic information mass whatever. As is obvious I know nothing but that is what my body make up on spot so it could be totally misunderstanding. what the formal name was me don't remember did the wiki on him not tell?

[yautja_cetanu]

When Philosophy was around originally it seemed to get some distance. Those few greeks came up with a lot of philosophical ideas in a very small period of time. They have ideas about morality that they thought could easily lead to utopias and started schools to solve real problems. Yeah, over the last few thousand years it does feel like philosophy hasn't progressed but it did when it was new.

Science on the otherhand feels more like its progressed but then scientific method hasn't really been around that long? Its only really been a couple of hundred years and really it could very easily go the way of philosophy. I've heard many physicists say that we're in a scientific rut at the moment, that there haven't really been any scientific breakthroughs since QED. Meanwhile the String theory debate is getting pretty big...

I don't know if this post is helpful but I don't think you can say science is better then philosophy. Its just relatively new and exciting.

[Quizalufagus]

I think the philosophical work done in the first half of the 20th century was at least as significant as the stuff done by the Greeks. In any case, I really can't imagine why anyone would think philosophy is stagnant.

[kennethamy]

I think the philosophical work done in the first half of the 20th century was at least as significant as the stuff done by the Greeks. In any case, I really can't imagine why anyone would think philosophy is stagnant.

What constitutes progress in philosophy is an important philosophical question. It seems to be different in some respects, but also similar in other respects to what is progress in science. However, there is diverse opinion on the latter question too, since Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and, even before that because of the writings on the philosophy of science by Karl Popper.

[yautja_cetanu]

I think the philosophical work done in the first half of the 20th century was at least as significant as the stuff done by the Greeks. In any case, I really can't imagine why anyone would think philosophy is stagnant.

I mean, in the time of the greeks it was seen as a profession of prestige. The general public for a while loved watching the debates if they couldn't afford the more violent games. People just enjoyed listening to philosophers speak in the market place (or so I'm told).

Nowadays people usually roll their eyes when they hear their philosophers talk. People generally think its pointless. You could try and tell them how its relevant, how academic philosophers have ideas that eventually trickle down into the masses and culture (post-modernism) but that argument would be philosophy, the thing their finding annoying in the first place.

Obviously this is entirely anecdotal, but it seems like the common view on philosophy is that "Its just a bunch of people's oppinions", that it doesn't get anywhere and give any solid conclusions (Unlike the Epicureans, who all genuinly believed hedonism would solve all problems). So I'm not suggesting that its stagnant (although I've heard people suggest that physics has been stagnating) but that people tend to feel its irrelevant.

The OP seemed to be suggesting this point of view and saying that science was better. But it seems like science is going a similar way.