Sunday School

Sunday School 3rd January 2021

This topic contains 71 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 5 days, 14 hours ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 61 through 72 (of 72 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35888

    Unseen
    Participant

    an irrelevant biological argument that applies a lot more to a description of a species than to decisions of individuals.

    Why do you think that? What is your reasoning? Why does it apply to species, a lot more than individuals?

    Now and then, the news will carry a story about a goose who, for some reason, did not migrate with the rest of his flock. Groups can be characterized in terms of well-justified generalizations, but those generalizations do not control the behavior of individuals with any degree of necessity.

    #35889

    Unseen
    Participant

    What does that even mean?

    Rational, logical thinking educated by data.

    No that definition would apply to MANY subjects in academia including psychology, engineering, medicine and law.

    Don’t stop there. It would also apply to a professional marketer designing an ad campaign for a new car or a drug lord introducing a new kind of addictive drug.

    #35896

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Hint: the scientific method plays a very large role.

    I’d agree that philosophy, and the scientific method, are closely related.

    Philosophy is supposed to agree with reality, as a primary requirement, otherwise it isn’t good philosophy.  On the other hand, there are thought experiments, a category within philosophy and science.  I think these create an imaginary scenario that illustrates some aspect of reality.

    #35897

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    It would also apply to … a drug lord introducing a new kind of addictive drug.

    But surely, the drug lord is doing factual research and making hypotheses about the relations between the facts.  That could be philosophy or science.

    #35898

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Groups can be characterized in terms of well-justified generalizations, but those generalizations do not control the behavior of individuals with any degree of necessity.

    That is true I think.  Individuals are governed by different rules than groups.  However, sometimes groups can behave, collectively, politically, like people in the way they interact and compete.  Perhaps groups have personalities like people do.

    #35899

    Unseen
    Participant

    It would also apply to … a drug lord introducing a new kind of addictive drug.

    But surely, the drug lord is doing factual research and making hypotheses about the relations between the facts. That could be philosophy or science.

    So, in addition to the rest, you have no idea what the philosophy of science is all about. WIKIPEDIA: Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science.[1] The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science. Ethical issues such as bioethics and scientific misconduct are often considered ethics or science studies rather than philosophy of science.

    Drug lord considerations? How?

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by  Unseen.
    #35905

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    That could be philosophy or science.

    philosophy of science

    Did you misread what I said?  I was saying it could be either philosophy or science (or a mixture of both).  After all, anybody can use a personal philosophy of life – a map of their world and how to navigate it.  This includes drug lords.

    #35906

    Davis
    Moderator

    No Simon. There may be some overlap but philosophy and science use two different methods. One is the scientific methods (notice plural) and the other is simply asking abstract questions and answering them. When philosophy tries to be specific (like dealing with a concrete bioethical issues) it may seem scientific but it does not use the scientific method. Philosophers don’t form hypothesis and rarely if ever perform experiments or make predictions. They may fund those experiments and certainly use the data but it does not use the method. Most philosophers understand the scientific method (as philosophy of science is an important subject) but they aren’t experienced in using the method unless they have a double major (or engage in interdisciplinary study). Logic doesn’t belong to philosophy nor science and using logic doesn’t make any enquiry particularly philosophical or scientific. The formal study of logic or critical thinking may be philosophical and most philosophical methods of enquiry use logic and critical thinking but again, it doesn’t own it. The overwhelming majority of academia uses logic in their arguments and research.

    Philosophy and Science are extremely diverse fields covering numerous rather different topics. One philosopher may study highly conceptual post-modern aesthetically theory while another does highly advanced and applied neuro-philosophy. While they both probably use logic and critical thinking and deal with abstract questions the tools they use will be different. The same goes with science. A theoretical physician is quite different to someone developing a new technique in genetic sequencing. The theoretician may in fact barely use a scientific method and deal with propositions that are difficult at the moment to demonstrate while the geneticist might deal with fairly black and white cut and dry success or failure. I don’t think it’s useful to compartmentalise philosophy or science. The scientific method is by far the best tool we have to gaining reliable knowledge and progressing our procurement of knowledge. Philosophy attempts to answer abstract questions and meta-questions (which includes an analysis of all methods of inquiry including logic and critical thinking) and in the process may get into the nitty gritty or technical but it doesn’t have to and few actually do. Both science and philosophy can be useful and useless and both can be worth engaging with and/or incomprehensible.

    #35907

    Unseen
    Participant

    Simon, you in your thinking have adopted the general flaw of Indian philosophy: over-inclusiveness. Everything is just a permutation of one universal something. All views are true in some way once you understand them. There are no real hard distinctions, just different ways of seeing the same thing.

    Sound familiar, Deepak?

    #35916

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I’d go so far as to say that science is applied philosophy.  So, of course they can overlap.

    #35984

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    I thought I would lighten up all the suicide talk by pointing out something about the History of Atheism article:

    It seems to imply that Buddhism was the initial carrier of Atheism in world history.  Actually, there was a school of thought in India called Charvaka or Lokayata which was an Atheist, Empiricist, Naturalistic school of thought that was around before Buddhism.  Some say it may have been around even before the Vedantic Schools in Hinduism.

    Quite fascinating, since many people, both Theists  and Atheists, like to think of Atheism as uniquely modern and specifically Western.

    #35985

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    Something else to lighten the mood from Mojo Nixon:

    Oh, and, Simon, you don’t have to be single and childfree to be a Doomer.  Al Bundy was proof that the opposite was true as well:

Viewing 12 posts - 61 through 72 (of 72 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.