3 ms·

Logic is a field of philosophy [1]. As most inductive reasoning is. It would be impossible to separate philosophy from math, and in turn math from physics. Phil

by Bodell 6y ago

Logic is a field of philosophy [1]. As most inductive reasoning is. It would be impossible to separate philosophy from math, and in turn math from physics. Philosophy is not intended to be a high level view but a low level one, willing to examine the core structures of any system, weather those are man made ones such as ethics or beliefs, or supposed nature laws such as the physical world. It’s is true that some modern philosophers have done poorly to keep up with recent discoveries. However this is also true of many other proponents of different fields (i.e. neurology has been accused in lacking cognitive/computer science knowledge, biological science is often accused of lacking knowledge in statistical models). No matter the claim we don’t tend to decide entire fields of study are useless because we disagree with some of its practitioners. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

nendroid 6y ago
Religion and morality is part of philosophy as well. Does this mean it is impossible to separate Morality and Mathematics? What is the mathematical formula for good and evil? >Philosophy is not intended to be a high level view but a low level one, We're talking about the same thing, high or low is just the choice of symbolic direction as nothing is really "lower" or "higher." Let's remove that from the semantics to remove the confusion. I mean a universal framework that unionizes all viewpoints into a cohesive whole similar to how assembly language unionizes all programming languages into a single cohesive language.
- Bodell 6y ago
  I think this fairly well points out that we do not actually mean the same thing when we say “high” and “low”. Although, I will concede that the two terms are often interchangeable and often misused. Correct me if I’m reading you wrongly, but It seems to me when you say high level you’re offering philosophy up as an umbrella where all things that fall beneath it are then equivocated. My argument is that I do not believe this. I believe philosophy is a tool best used to build things up from the bottom. I think when physics asks a question of itself, we can safely call that philosophy. In much the same way, it is also philosophy when we ask ourselves if what we are doing is morally “right”. Same tool, vastly different jobs. With little to no connection inherent between the jobs themselves. This would be the same in mathematics if I were to offer an axiom in traditional number theory (specifically all positive integers in a base 10 system). I would then need to argue that my proposed axiom did not apply also to propositional calculus, as no reasonable mathematical would believe that they were equivalent. This is not to say there is no overlap, there very well may be if interpreted correctly. But it does not by its existence imply they should be the same thing. This is also where I think we agree. For me physics’ ability to question its axioms are in fact what separates it from things like religious dogma. An axiom that is indisputable is dogma in a sense. So the reason why science is so powerful is this ability to question and not take results on faith. To remove philosophy from that would be to diminish what sets it apart. So with the tool metaphor I’d just say agin that not all practitioners use their tools wisely. But this does not mean we should throw out all of our hammers just because we see someone using one upside down. I would also suggest reading more on the topic of ethics in philosophy. I think you may find that the field is far more scientific then you believe it to be. You’ll also note that there are many similarities in its logic and methods of categorization. The issue is simply that it is much more difficult to answer questions in ethics than it is to find out what happens to an object on a frictionless plane. And if physics is the one true answer, than not much can be considered purely human made. As humans abide the same physical laws that frictionless planes do.
  - nendroid 6y ago
    >Correct me if I’m reading you wrongly, but It seems to me when you say high level you’re offering philosophy up as an umbrella where all things that fall beneath it are then equivocated. No we mean the same thing. Though I do not agree with you that philosophy is more fundamental then science or logic. >You’ll also note that there are many similarities in its logic and methods of categorization. Any random topic can be founded on arbitrary axioms to create theorems of unlimited complexity. This does not justify study imo.
    - Bodell 6y ago
      Neither does your comment.
      - nendroid 6y ago
        Neither does yours as well.
mannykannot 6y ago
It is certainly true that science is founded on philosophy and is arguably a branch of it, but the implicit question in the controversial passage from the review is whether modern philosophy's methods are adequate. In that regard, as pointed out by Eliezer Yudkowsky [1], two millenia of philosophic inquiry was blindsided by the more radical epistemic and metaphysical implications of 20th. century physics. Personally, I feel that philosophy of the mind's preoccupation with materialism (or its denial) [2] is a distraction that is holding it back. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Bp8vnEciPA5TXSy6f/can-you-prove-two-particles-are-identical https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Bp8vnEciPA5TXSy6f/can-you-pr... [2] http://www.timcrane.com/uploads/2/5/2/4/25243881/crane_hist_of_consciousness_draft.pdf http://www.timcrane.com/uploads/2/5/2/4/25243881/crane_hist_... p. 13
- Bodell 6y ago
  I'd have to give it serious thought, but if I were to agree, I'd also have to add that: The last two millennia of physics were also blindsided by it's own implications of it's discoveries in the 20th century. Philosophy of mind I think is only a good example of all the things we still do not understand about neurology and cognitive science. I am not personally disheartened by it, as I typically get excited about unanswered questions. But I would agree modern day philosophers would be well advised to read more interdisciplinary science journals if they want to remain relevant. A good example of this is the Bereitschaftspotential from Libet's famous experiments.The experiment was sound the results were sound, the interpretations however may not have been. Diligent philosophers could have pointed this out, but it was the work of a medical researcher who did disprove it's underlying assumptions.[1][2] [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will... [2]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230624040_An_Accumulator_Model_for_Spontaneous_Neural_Activity_Prior_to_Self-Initiated_Movement https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230624040_An_Accumu...
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    > The last two millennia of physics were also blindsided by it's own implications of it's discoveries in the 20th century. Putting aside whether we have had two millennia of physics as a distinct discipline, the point here is that progress on these issues was made by the methods of physics, rather than those of philosophic epistemology and metaphysics.

by Bodell 6y ago

nendroid 6y ago

Religion and morality is part of philosophy as well. Does this mean it is impossible to separate Morality and Mathematics? What is the mathematical formula for good and evil? >Philosophy is not intended to be a high level view but a low level one, We're talking about the same thing, high or low is just the choice of symbolic direction as nothing is really "lower" or "higher." Let's remove that from the semantics to remove the confusion. I mean a universal framework that unionizes all viewpoints into a cohesive whole similar to how assembly language unionizes all programming languages into a single cohesive language.

Bodell 6y ago
I think this fairly well points out that we do not actually mean the same thing when we say “high” and “low”. Although, I will concede that the two terms are often interchangeable and often misused. Correct me if I’m reading you wrongly, but It seems to me when you say high level you’re offering philosophy up as an umbrella where all things that fall beneath it are then equivocated. My argument is that I do not believe this. I believe philosophy is a tool best used to build things up from the bottom. I think when physics asks a question of itself, we can safely call that philosophy. In much the same way, it is also philosophy when we ask ourselves if what we are doing is morally “right”. Same tool, vastly different jobs. With little to no connection inherent between the jobs themselves. This would be the same in mathematics if I were to offer an axiom in traditional number theory (specifically all positive integers in a base 10 system). I would then need to argue that my proposed axiom did not apply also to propositional calculus, as no reasonable mathematical would believe that they were equivalent. This is not to say there is no overlap, there very well may be if interpreted correctly. But it does not by its existence imply they should be the same thing. This is also where I think we agree. For me physics’ ability to question its axioms are in fact what separates it from things like religious dogma. An axiom that is indisputable is dogma in a sense. So the reason why science is so powerful is this ability to question and not take results on faith. To remove philosophy from that would be to diminish what sets it apart. So with the tool metaphor I’d just say agin that not all practitioners use their tools wisely. But this does not mean we should throw out all of our hammers just because we see someone using one upside down. I would also suggest reading more on the topic of ethics in philosophy. I think you may find that the field is far more scientific then you believe it to be. You’ll also note that there are many similarities in its logic and methods of categorization. The issue is simply that it is much more difficult to answer questions in ethics than it is to find out what happens to an object on a frictionless plane. And if physics is the one true answer, than not much can be considered purely human made. As humans abide the same physical laws that frictionless planes do.
- nendroid 6y ago
  >Correct me if I’m reading you wrongly, but It seems to me when you say high level you’re offering philosophy up as an umbrella where all things that fall beneath it are then equivocated. No we mean the same thing. Though I do not agree with you that philosophy is more fundamental then science or logic. >You’ll also note that there are many similarities in its logic and methods of categorization. Any random topic can be founded on arbitrary axioms to create theorems of unlimited complexity. This does not justify study imo.
  - Bodell 6y ago
    Neither does your comment.
    - nendroid 6y ago
      Neither does yours as well.

mannykannot 6y ago

It is certainly true that science is founded on philosophy and is arguably a branch of it, but the implicit question in the controversial passage from the review is whether modern philosophy's methods are adequate. In that regard, as pointed out by Eliezer Yudkowsky [1], two millenia of philosophic inquiry was blindsided by the more radical epistemic and metaphysical implications of 20th. century physics. Personally, I feel that philosophy of the mind's preoccupation with materialism (or its denial) [2] is a distraction that is holding it back. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Bp8vnEciPA5TXSy6f/can-you-prove-two-particles-are-identical https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Bp8vnEciPA5TXSy6f/can-you-pr... [2] http://www.timcrane.com/uploads/2/5/2/4/25243881/crane_hist_of_consciousness_draft.pdf http://www.timcrane.com/uploads/2/5/2/4/25243881/crane_hist_... p. 13

Bodell 6y ago
I'd have to give it serious thought, but if I were to agree, I'd also have to add that: The last two millennia of physics were also blindsided by it's own implications of it's discoveries in the 20th century. Philosophy of mind I think is only a good example of all the things we still do not understand about neurology and cognitive science. I am not personally disheartened by it, as I typically get excited about unanswered questions. But I would agree modern day philosophers would be well advised to read more interdisciplinary science journals if they want to remain relevant. A good example of this is the Bereitschaftspotential from Libet's famous experiments.The experiment was sound the results were sound, the interpretations however may not have been. Diligent philosophers could have pointed this out, but it was the work of a medical researcher who did disprove it's underlying assumptions.[1][2] [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will... [2]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230624040_An_Accumulator_Model_for_Spontaneous_Neural_Activity_Prior_to_Self-Initiated_Movement https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230624040_An_Accumu...
- mannykannot 6y ago
  > The last two millennia of physics were also blindsided by it's own implications of it's discoveries in the 20th century. Putting aside whether we have had two millennia of physics as a distinct discipline, the point here is that progress on these issues was made by the methods of physics, rather than those of philosophic epistemology and metaphysics.