4 ms·

Nothing specific to the article here, but in general I believe philosophical question tends to be explain or made obsolete by scientific discovery rather than p

by NhanH 11y ago

Nothing specific to the article here, but in general I believe philosophical question tends to be explain or made obsolete by scientific discovery rather than philosophy itself. Look at the discussion on "life substance" (I forgot the term) before we learn how to synthesize organic compound as an example. Otherwise, the concurrent philosophical text on conscious and intelligence would be another case where answer would likely be explain by science.

raincom 11y ago
you mean 'elan vital'?
mjburgess 11y ago
This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy. Everyone is engaged in philosophy, including scientists themselves, and mostly poorly. Scientists in considering what data signifies life are themselves taking as given some concept 'life' - ie. their first step is philosophical (as ever). You may say whatever a decision a scientist makes on concepts such as these is obviously the best - but then history would show you totally incorrect. It is possible to refine the method of judging the best concepts, and of refining the questions which lead to these judgements, and of the method of making the best deicisons with respect to them. This task is philosophy. And "incorrect philosophy" of the past such as the vital force was a philosophy of an incorrect science - not somehow a "pure philosophy" that had gone wrong. A philosophy of a better science produces a better philosophy (and a better science).
- NhanH 11y ago
  > This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy I really should take offence here with this statement ;). >You may say whatever a decision a scientist makes on concepts such as these is obviously the best - but then history would show you totally incorrect. That wasn't what I meant at all. I meant it is normal for scientific evidence to be part of answer for philosophical question, and there is no conflict to be found with that. In fact, up until the middle of last century when science becomes too specialized, it's fairly normal for scientist and mathematicians to also be engaging in lot of philosophy (Bertrand Russell and Hilbert comes to mind). Several branches of logics are also intertwined with philosophy development. The seemingly separation of science and philosophy nowadays is more a matter of specialization than anything (there is a quote on this). "Vital force" was an incorrect scientific hypothesis, but the philosophical question of "is there anything fundamentally difference between life and non-life objects" is answered by scientific advancement. And I said that specific philosophical questions can be made obsolete, just as scientific questions can be made obsolete and irrelevant. That is no indictment on either philosophy or the scientific method. From my understanding, science is more the concern of facts, and philosophy is the framework for study and interpretation of those facts ("truths", if you will).
  - mjburgess 11y ago
    > "is there anything fundamentally difference between life and non-life objects" is answered by scientific advancement No it isnt. Science has only made one candidate for the meaning of "fundamental" trivial (in particular, that the physical substance of living things is the same substance of non-living things)- there are many other senses in which living things and non-livings things are fundamentally different. For example, all moral agents are necessarily alive. All non-living things are necessarily not moral agents.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Hm. Not agreeing here. Either one is derived from / defined by the other somehow, so they are two words for one thing. Or there is supposed to be some property of life not mentioned that is necessary for moral agency. In which case a perfect simulation of a living thing, not alive in itself but identical in all knowable ways by definition, would have to have moral agency?
- WhitneyLand 11y ago
  Comes across as pedantic and somewhat bitter, possibly after having read Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments on philosophy.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mjburgess 11y ago
    Imagine engineers drawing landscapes and calling art dead. This is what we have with the naive popularises of science today.
frenchy 11y ago
I think "vital force" is the term you might be looking for. While almost any scientist would just chuckle at the idea, remnants of it are still quite common in modern philosophy.
- hyperpape 11y ago
  Who/what are you thinking of when you say it's common? There's exactly one[1] post 1950 Anglosphere philosopher I could credibly associate with the idea, out of literally hundreds I've read: John Searle. And arguably that's a dismissive appraisal of what he thinks (but I don't think his view makes any damn sense, so that's what I'm stuck with). [1] Honorable mention to Trenton Merricks and Peter Van Inwagen who have strange beliefs that sound a bit like belief in a vital force, but aren't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism Edit: I see you say remnants. I suppose a lot of this is open to interpretation about what a remnant is.

by NhanH 11y ago

raincom 11y ago

you mean 'elan vital'?

mjburgess 11y ago

This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy. Everyone is engaged in philosophy, including scientists themselves, and mostly poorly. Scientists in considering what data signifies life are themselves taking as given some concept 'life' - ie. their first step is philosophical (as ever). You may say whatever a decision a scientist makes on concepts such as these is obviously the best - but then history would show you totally incorrect. It is possible to refine the method of judging the best concepts, and of refining the questions which lead to these judgements, and of the method of making the best deicisons with respect to them. This task is philosophy. And "incorrect philosophy" of the past such as the vital force was a philosophy of an incorrect science - not somehow a "pure philosophy" that had gone wrong. A philosophy of a better science produces a better philosophy (and a better science).

NhanH 11y ago
> This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy I really should take offence here with this statement ;). >You may say whatever a decision a scientist makes on concepts such as these is obviously the best - but then history would show you totally incorrect. That wasn't what I meant at all. I meant it is normal for scientific evidence to be part of answer for philosophical question, and there is no conflict to be found with that. In fact, up until the middle of last century when science becomes too specialized, it's fairly normal for scientist and mathematicians to also be engaging in lot of philosophy (Bertrand Russell and Hilbert comes to mind). Several branches of logics are also intertwined with philosophy development. The seemingly separation of science and philosophy nowadays is more a matter of specialization than anything (there is a quote on this). "Vital force" was an incorrect scientific hypothesis, but the philosophical question of "is there anything fundamentally difference between life and non-life objects" is answered by scientific advancement. And I said that specific philosophical questions can be made obsolete, just as scientific questions can be made obsolete and irrelevant. That is no indictment on either philosophy or the scientific method. From my understanding, science is more the concern of facts, and philosophy is the framework for study and interpretation of those facts ("truths", if you will).
- mjburgess 11y ago
  > "is there anything fundamentally difference between life and non-life objects" is answered by scientific advancement No it isnt. Science has only made one candidate for the meaning of "fundamental" trivial (in particular, that the physical substance of living things is the same substance of non-living things)- there are many other senses in which living things and non-livings things are fundamentally different. For example, all moral agents are necessarily alive. All non-living things are necessarily not moral agents.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Hm. Not agreeing here. Either one is derived from / defined by the other somehow, so they are two words for one thing. Or there is supposed to be some property of life not mentioned that is necessary for moral agency. In which case a perfect simulation of a living thing, not alive in itself but identical in all knowable ways by definition, would have to have moral agency?
WhitneyLand 11y ago
Comes across as pedantic and somewhat bitter, possibly after having read Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments on philosophy.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mjburgess 11y ago
  Imagine engineers drawing landscapes and calling art dead. This is what we have with the naive popularises of science today.

frenchy 11y ago

I think "vital force" is the term you might be looking for. While almost any scientist would just chuckle at the idea, remnants of it are still quite common in modern philosophy.

hyperpape 11y ago
Who/what are you thinking of when you say it's common? There's exactly one[1] post 1950 Anglosphere philosopher I could credibly associate with the idea, out of literally hundreds I've read: John Searle. And arguably that's a dismissive appraisal of what he thinks (but I don't think his view makes any damn sense, so that's what I'm stuck with). [1] Honorable mention to Trenton Merricks and Peter Van Inwagen who have strange beliefs that sound a bit like belief in a vital force, but aren't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism Edit: I see you say remnants. I suppose a lot of this is open to interpretation about what a remnant is.