3 ms·

>In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only a

>In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence. I'm curious if you have any evidence that this is a general trend. Your original comment is also wrong; the "Frankfurt School", one of your examples, does not ascribe particular authority to its members by virtue of being part of the "school"[1] - rather, it denotes a particular tradition, very similar to the way we use the term "school" in music. A school of thought[0] specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles, not a commitment to certain personages. Although a school may take after one person, it's not because of the person but because of the content of their thought. Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Other schools were, for instance, committed to certain ideas of science. These philosophical schools are ontologically prior to science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought [1] Habermas is a "member" of the Frankfurt School of thought, yet he is criticized by those inside and outside the school. This, at least, shows that a school of thought is not a dogmatic adherence to a person or their ideas.

Rochus 7y ago
When we hear the name Adorno, we have to tremble with awe, don't we? >> A school of thought[0] specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" (sorry if I'm hurting the feelings of any Marxists here). >> Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy; they have not the same conception of science like the English speaking world. See e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft Among other things I also attended many years of philosophy lectures. As far as the philosophy of science is concerned, I think it should go more in this direction: https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/dp/0521592712 https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/d...
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" I agree, and nobody has claimed otherwise. Ideas that come from a school are not necessarily more or less valid than any others. There are some schools of thought I agree with, and others I disagree with, and I think that's the same for many lay people like me and many philosophers too. >Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy I think it can be argued that Marx was engaged in Wissenschaft (Patrick Murray argues this, for example), but I don't know if the same could be said about the Frankfurt School, at lesat not on the whole.
  - Rochus 7y ago
    By the end of the day, "philosopher" is nothing more than a more fashionable word for "writer". And like "film critic", "philosopher" is an unprotected, self-appointed title. In principle, philosophers (apart from having to compete for an audience like writers) have a pretty simple life. They can simply claim something without ever providing any proof. And with a bit of luck and charisma, they find disciples who continue to represent their doctrine and help their master to gain social prestige. And as you correctly say: this concept predates science and enlightenment. My original statement was that I am skeptical of knowledge whose origins are a specific person or group of persons ("schools"). I hope to have clarified my point after this excursion. In the case of traditional philosophy of science there is even a contradiction in terms: the statements are dogmas that defy falsification. So according to the own criteria of the philosophy of science of that time they do not differ from religion.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      >By the end of the day, "philosopher" is nothing more than a more fashionable word for "writer". And like "film critic", "philosopher" is an unprotected, self-appointed title. Scientists also write; writing isn't the point, the point is logically consistent arguments (or arguments for a particular logical system), which philosophers attempt to make. "Mathematician", "programmer", "logician" and in many cases "engineer" are also self-appointed titles, yet in both cases we must say that a mathematician and engineer's work could reasonably be said to be confined to writing and designing. The fact of the matter is that logical claims do not require "proof", but the relevance of theories to the world as observed by science does require support from the scientific method. This is why philosophers strive for their systems to be consistent with the current state of science (whether physics, biology or sociology, etc.) >And as you correctly say: this concept predates science and enlightenment. It not only predates, it is ontologically prior, meaning that for science to be carried out, there must be a justified philosophy of science for it to have any basis. For instance, we might ask, "why falsification?" - a question that, if unanswered, renders science without a logical basis. You may reply that science is useful whether or not we have a logical basis, but usefulness in turn requires some justification; after all, many things are useful but we do not carry them out for other reasons. >In the case of traditional philosophy of science there is even a contradiction in terms: the statements are dogmas that defy falsification This is not a contradiction in terms, since most philosophers of science are not pure falsificationists. Falsification is not the only way to gain knowledge generally (logical arguments and mathematics are unfalsifiable; even the statement "science must be falsifiable" is unfalsifiable), but after Popper there are very few pure falsificationists in the philosophy of science, for various good reasons[0]. >So according to the own criteria of the philosophy of science of that time they do not differ from religion. Philosophy of science is very much the equivalent of atheism, or agnosticism when we're talking about dogmas such as falsificationism or positivism or any other popular way of doing science that is unjustified. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

Rochus 7y ago

When we hear the name Adorno, we have to tremble with awe, don't we? >> A school of thought[0] specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" (sorry if I'm hurting the feelings of any Marxists here). >> Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy; they have not the same conception of science like the English speaking world. See e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft Among other things I also attended many years of philosophy lectures. As far as the philosophy of science is concerned, I think it should go more in this direction: https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/dp/0521592712 https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/d...

claudiawerner 7y ago
>Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" I agree, and nobody has claimed otherwise. Ideas that come from a school are not necessarily more or less valid than any others. There are some schools of thought I agree with, and others I disagree with, and I think that's the same for many lay people like me and many philosophers too. >Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy I think it can be argued that Marx was engaged in Wissenschaft (Patrick Murray argues this, for example), but I don't know if the same could be said about the Frankfurt School, at lesat not on the whole.
- Rochus 7y ago
  By the end of the day, "philosopher" is nothing more than a more fashionable word for "writer". And like "film critic", "philosopher" is an unprotected, self-appointed title. In principle, philosophers (apart from having to compete for an audience like writers) have a pretty simple life. They can simply claim something without ever providing any proof. And with a bit of luck and charisma, they find disciples who continue to represent their doctrine and help their master to gain social prestige. And as you correctly say: this concept predates science and enlightenment. My original statement was that I am skeptical of knowledge whose origins are a specific person or group of persons ("schools"). I hope to have clarified my point after this excursion. In the case of traditional philosophy of science there is even a contradiction in terms: the statements are dogmas that defy falsification. So according to the own criteria of the philosophy of science of that time they do not differ from religion.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >By the end of the day, "philosopher" is nothing more than a more fashionable word for "writer". And like "film critic", "philosopher" is an unprotected, self-appointed title. Scientists also write; writing isn't the point, the point is logically consistent arguments (or arguments for a particular logical system), which philosophers attempt to make. "Mathematician", "programmer", "logician" and in many cases "engineer" are also self-appointed titles, yet in both cases we must say that a mathematician and engineer's work could reasonably be said to be confined to writing and designing. The fact of the matter is that logical claims do not require "proof", but the relevance of theories to the world as observed by science does require support from the scientific method. This is why philosophers strive for their systems to be consistent with the current state of science (whether physics, biology or sociology, etc.) >And as you correctly say: this concept predates science and enlightenment. It not only predates, it is ontologically prior, meaning that for science to be carried out, there must be a justified philosophy of science for it to have any basis. For instance, we might ask, "why falsification?" - a question that, if unanswered, renders science without a logical basis. You may reply that science is useful whether or not we have a logical basis, but usefulness in turn requires some justification; after all, many things are useful but we do not carry them out for other reasons. >In the case of traditional philosophy of science there is even a contradiction in terms: the statements are dogmas that defy falsification This is not a contradiction in terms, since most philosophers of science are not pure falsificationists. Falsification is not the only way to gain knowledge generally (logical arguments and mathematics are unfalsifiable; even the statement "science must be falsifiable" is unfalsifiable), but after Popper there are very few pure falsificationists in the philosophy of science, for various good reasons[0]. >So according to the own criteria of the philosophy of science of that time they do not differ from religion. Philosophy of science is very much the equivalent of atheism, or agnosticism when we're talking about dogmas such as falsificationism or positivism or any other popular way of doing science that is unjustified. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/