5 ms·

Yeah, I agree. I'm more arguing for the fact that philosophy is not more fundamental than science. Think of it in the sense of in the big quest to answer the b

Yeah, I agree. I'm more arguing for the fact that philosophy is not more fundamental than science. Think of it in the sense of in the big quest to answer the big fundamental question of existence we likely won't find it through philosophy because of a category error. Religion and ethics is not more fundamental than logic yet philosophy places them side by side as peers. This doesn't mean we should just throw the whole thing in the trash or that nothing good ever came out of it. I'm not saying that.

entropicdrifter 6y ago
>Religion and ethics is not more fundamental than logic yet philosophy places them side by side as peers. See, this is what I was talking about before, you're speaking of 'philosophy' as though it's one big thing and there's a unified perspective there. I don't think that anyone in their right mind would argue that ethics are as fundamentally true as logic any more than they would argue that a scientific theory is more proven than a mathematical proof. You just attacked a strawman, is my point. That was my point before, too. Philosophy is the exploration of perspectives, it isn't a single thing. It's an action. Just like science.
- nendroid 6y ago
  Many people hold it as something more fundamental than science, which is ultimately what I'm "attacking"
  - entropicdrifter 6y ago
    It is more fundamental than science. Trivially, you can show this by pointing to the fact that science branched off of "it". But more relevantly, if you can't clearly organize your thoughts into a coherent perspective or think critically and draw logical conclusions, you can't follow the scientific method in the first place. Nobody can.
    - nendroid 6y ago
      >Trivially, you can show this by pointing to the fact that science branched off of "it". This doesn't hold. Chemistry branched off of alchemy, this doesn't make alchemy real or more fundamental than chemistry. >But more relevantly, if you can't clearly organize your thoughts into a coherent perspective or think critically and draw logical conclusions, you can't follow the scientific method in the first place. Nobody can. The scientific method cannot draw conclusions. In practice it's mostly used to establish correlations only. When used in attempt to directly prove something it can only do so to a statistical degree and can never in actuality arrive at a "conclusion" that one can arrive at with logic. I'm just saying that the description I wrote above has nothing to do with the ethics of the death penalty which philosophy places as more "fundamental." I mean if you're saying philosophy is the study of anything and everything then yes it is more fundamental, but as blurry as they are, the boundaries of what philosophy encompasses are way more limited than "everything." I am saying that the boundaries are also arbitrary and biased and therefore not more fundamental than science.
      - entropicdrifter 6y ago
        >The scientific method cannot draw conclusions. In practice it's mostly used to establish correlations only. When used in attempt to directly prove something it can only do so to a statistical degree and can never in actuality arrive at a "conclusion" that one can arrive at with logic. You need to be able to logically extrapolate from the body of existent evidence to form new testable hypotheses. You're right that I shouldn't have use the word 'conclusion' but the point still stands that the mental tools of the scientific method are the exact same ones that were refined by philosophy for millennia before the scientific method was first formalized by Bacon. Rational philosophy is a bare minimum prerequisite to consistent scientific inquiry. >I'm just saying that the description I wrote above has nothing to do with the ethics of the death penalty which philosophy places as more "fundamental." I'd like to see a source for that. Really sounds like another strawman to me. >I mean if you're saying philosophy is the study of anything and everything then yes it is more fundamental, but as blurry as they are, the boundaries of what philosophy encompasses are way more limited than "everything." "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or religion) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. It involves logical analysis of language and clarification of the meaning of words and concepts." - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_philosophy

entropicdrifter 6y ago

>Religion and ethics is not more fundamental than logic yet philosophy places them side by side as peers. See, this is what I was talking about before, you're speaking of 'philosophy' as though it's one big thing and there's a unified perspective there. I don't think that anyone in their right mind would argue that ethics are as fundamentally true as logic any more than they would argue that a scientific theory is more proven than a mathematical proof. You just attacked a strawman, is my point. That was my point before, too. Philosophy is the exploration of perspectives, it isn't a single thing. It's an action. Just like science.

nendroid 6y ago
Many people hold it as something more fundamental than science, which is ultimately what I'm "attacking"
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  It is more fundamental than science. Trivially, you can show this by pointing to the fact that science branched off of "it". But more relevantly, if you can't clearly organize your thoughts into a coherent perspective or think critically and draw logical conclusions, you can't follow the scientific method in the first place. Nobody can.
  - nendroid 6y ago
    >Trivially, you can show this by pointing to the fact that science branched off of "it". This doesn't hold. Chemistry branched off of alchemy, this doesn't make alchemy real or more fundamental than chemistry. >But more relevantly, if you can't clearly organize your thoughts into a coherent perspective or think critically and draw logical conclusions, you can't follow the scientific method in the first place. Nobody can. The scientific method cannot draw conclusions. In practice it's mostly used to establish correlations only. When used in attempt to directly prove something it can only do so to a statistical degree and can never in actuality arrive at a "conclusion" that one can arrive at with logic. I'm just saying that the description I wrote above has nothing to do with the ethics of the death penalty which philosophy places as more "fundamental." I mean if you're saying philosophy is the study of anything and everything then yes it is more fundamental, but as blurry as they are, the boundaries of what philosophy encompasses are way more limited than "everything." I am saying that the boundaries are also arbitrary and biased and therefore not more fundamental than science.
    - entropicdrifter 6y ago
      >The scientific method cannot draw conclusions. In practice it's mostly used to establish correlations only. When used in attempt to directly prove something it can only do so to a statistical degree and can never in actuality arrive at a "conclusion" that one can arrive at with logic. You need to be able to logically extrapolate from the body of existent evidence to form new testable hypotheses. You're right that I shouldn't have use the word 'conclusion' but the point still stands that the mental tools of the scientific method are the exact same ones that were refined by philosophy for millennia before the scientific method was first formalized by Bacon. Rational philosophy is a bare minimum prerequisite to consistent scientific inquiry. >I'm just saying that the description I wrote above has nothing to do with the ethics of the death penalty which philosophy places as more "fundamental." I'd like to see a source for that. Really sounds like another strawman to me. >I mean if you're saying philosophy is the study of anything and everything then yes it is more fundamental, but as blurry as they are, the boundaries of what philosophy encompasses are way more limited than "everything." "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or religion) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. It involves logical analysis of language and clarification of the meaning of words and concepts." - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_philosophy