4 ms·
You're missing the point. The purpose of the statement is to show that the speaker who says "science has superseded philosophy" can't possibly really believe in
by jdtang13 8y ago
You're missing the point. The purpose of the statement is to show that the speaker who says "science has superseded philosophy" can't possibly really believe in what he's saying, because he's using philosophy to justify the superiority of science. Which makes no sense. If the physical sciences were really superior to philosophy, then they wouldn't need to rely on philosophy for their justification.
The statement is meant to expose a common hypocrisy. It is not meant to be an actual argument to support philosophical study, which could still be totally useless. It would be more convincing if the science-lover could use empirical methods to disprove the need for philosophy.
- hackinthebochs 8y ago>because he's using philosophy to justify the superiority of science. But saying something is a philosophical position doesn't mean he is using philosophy to justify that position! Philosophy purports to be a general analysis of how things are, so in some sense everything is a philosophical position. But this doesn't bootstrap the value of philosophy, not in any substantive sense.
- bloaf 8y agoIsn't the real issue that meta-physics is that it always follows actual-physics? That is, if the metaphysicist says something like "guns don't really exist" and the physicist says "but I made a real gun, can I shoot you with it to prove it?" the metaphysicists always back down. Or put less aggressively, it is metaphysics that has to conform to discoveries in physics, not the other way around. So the point the pro-science people are making is that any metaphysicists who deny the efficacy of science can't possibly believe what they are saying because they are not willing or able to actually live their lives according to their beliefs.