4 ms·

"Philosophy is dead" - Stephen Hawking. Philosophers haven't bothered to learn modern science, they do not have the expertise necessary to do anything but pont

by Retra 9y ago

"Philosophy is dead" - Stephen Hawking. Philosophers haven't bothered to learn modern science, they do not have the expertise necessary to do anything but pontificate on vagaries. Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways. Scientists do that now.

Valmar 9y ago
How arrogant. It is philosophy that gave birth to science is it is today. In fact, "science" was once known as "natural philosophy". Science is a practical philosophy based on experimentation via the scientific method. It is a philosophy, that is, a way of looking at the world. > Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways. What about Scientism, the religion that considers science to be the "One, True Way"? It usually incorporates the reductive materialist belief system quite heavily. And it is Scientism that arrogantly dismisses philosophy as some outmoded system, when in fact, Scientism is ironically a philosophical position itself, a religious one at that. Meanwhile, philosophy as a whole continues to explore different ways of looking at the world unabated, because it doesn't get side-tracked by ridiculous religious dogma. Meanwhile, science and the scientific method, those practical philosophical tools that have been very useful in the hands of those who care about positive and beneficial progress for all of mankind, continue marching on proudly, unconcerned by ridiculous religious dogma.
- Retra 9y ago
  Arrogance isn't a fallacy in reasoning. Rejecting a belief because it sounds arrogant is particularly stupid kind of vanity.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    Arrogance is rooted in self-importance. In fact, if one can glean common themes from science, it's that there is a distinct lack of self importance, that humans are special . The Earth is not the center of the universe, the sun and stars do not revolve around it, there is no center of the universe as every point can be considered the center, all motion is relative, etc.
naasking 9y ago
> Philosophers haven't bothered to learn modern science Incorrect. > they do not have the expertise necessary to do anything but pontificate on vagaries Also incorrect. > Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways. 3 for 3, congratulations!
- Retra 9y ago
  Excellent points. I stand refuted and corrected. Wonderful.
  - naasking 9y ago
    There's nothing to refute, your statements had just as little substance as mine. If only there was some field of study which could discern valid logical arguments and how persuasive we ought to find them. Someone really ought to start such a field of study.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
Noam Chomsky is the father of modern linguistics, and his theories hold that the principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted. The 1984 Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Niels Kaj Jerne, used Chomsky's generative grammar model to explain the human immune system, equating "components of a generative grammar ... with various features of protein structures." Chomsky's work contributed substantially to the decline of behaviorist psychology. In addition, some arguments in evolutionary psychology are derived from his research results I've read less of Daniel Dennet, but he has been influential in the theory of mind and the direction that some AI research has taken. When I think of modern philosophers, these are the giants. > Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways. It's funny that you mention that. While at undergrad I took a biology class taught by Robert Sapolsky (I consider him equal parts scientist and philosopher) where he philosophized on the origin of religiosity using scientific findings and research. Would you like ot know more: http://www.openculture.com/2014/12/robert-sapolsky-explains-the-biological-basis-of-religiosity.html http://www.openculture.com/2014/12/robert-sapolsky-explains-... They're not completely distinct fields of study, they operate on a spectrum as science and philsophy go hand in hand. The big questions in philosophy are somewhat neatly summed up in 4 questions: Who am I? What do I want? Why am I here? Where am I going? Substitute we for I, and then that pretty much sums up the questions science tries to answer.

by Retra 9y ago

Valmar 9y ago

How arrogant. It is philosophy that gave birth to science is it is today. In fact, "science" was once known as "natural philosophy". Science is a practical philosophy based on experimentation via the scientific method. It is a philosophy, that is, a way of looking at the world. > Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways. What about Scientism, the religion that considers science to be the "One, True Way"? It usually incorporates the reductive materialist belief system quite heavily. And it is Scientism that arrogantly dismisses philosophy as some outmoded system, when in fact, Scientism is ironically a philosophical position itself, a religious one at that. Meanwhile, philosophy as a whole continues to explore different ways of looking at the world unabated, because it doesn't get side-tracked by ridiculous religious dogma. Meanwhile, science and the scientific method, those practical philosophical tools that have been very useful in the hands of those who care about positive and beneficial progress for all of mankind, continue marching on proudly, unconcerned by ridiculous religious dogma.

Retra 9y ago
Arrogance isn't a fallacy in reasoning. Rejecting a belief because it sounds arrogant is particularly stupid kind of vanity.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  Arrogance is rooted in self-importance. In fact, if one can glean common themes from science, it's that there is a distinct lack of self importance, that humans are special . The Earth is not the center of the universe, the sun and stars do not revolve around it, there is no center of the universe as every point can be considered the center, all motion is relative, etc.

naasking 9y ago

> Philosophers haven't bothered to learn modern science Incorrect. > they do not have the expertise necessary to do anything but pontificate on vagaries Also incorrect. > Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways. 3 for 3, congratulations!

Retra 9y ago
Excellent points. I stand refuted and corrected. Wonderful.
- naasking 9y ago
  There's nothing to refute, your statements had just as little substance as mine. If only there was some field of study which could discern valid logical arguments and how persuasive we ought to find them. Someone really ought to start such a field of study.

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

Noam Chomsky is the father of modern linguistics, and his theories hold that the principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted. The 1984 Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Niels Kaj Jerne, used Chomsky's generative grammar model to explain the human immune system, equating "components of a generative grammar ... with various features of protein structures." Chomsky's work contributed substantially to the decline of behaviorist psychology. In addition, some arguments in evolutionary psychology are derived from his research results I've read less of Daniel Dennet, but he has been influential in the theory of mind and the direction that some AI research has taken. When I think of modern philosophers, these are the giants. > Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways. It's funny that you mention that. While at undergrad I took a biology class taught by Robert Sapolsky (I consider him equal parts scientist and philosopher) where he philosophized on the origin of religiosity using scientific findings and research. Would you like ot know more: http://www.openculture.com/2014/12/robert-sapolsky-explains-the-biological-basis-of-religiosity.html http://www.openculture.com/2014/12/robert-sapolsky-explains-... They're not completely distinct fields of study, they operate on a spectrum as science and philsophy go hand in hand. The big questions in philosophy are somewhat neatly summed up in 4 questions: Who am I? What do I want? Why am I here? Where am I going? Substitute we for I, and then that pretty much sums up the questions science tries to answer.