10 ms·

Pseudo refers to pretensions/shams. Philosophy need not pretend to be science, it can openly speculate, without the rigors of the scientific method. In science,

Pseudo refers to pretensions/shams. Philosophy need not pretend to be science, it can openly speculate, without the rigors of the scientific method. In science, a hypothesis can be made, but that has very many parameters restricting what can be said through it.

neonological 6y ago
I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. I highly disagree with this. A statement made on the basis of logic or science has more weight then any sort of random speculation made in “aesthetics” yet philosophy places them on equal grounds. There is a clear error in hierarchy here similar to the phylum based nomenclature in biology.
- routerl 6y ago
  > Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. You've really totally misunderstood what they were describing. Metaphysics is "above" physics because it is about what the word "physics" even means. For example, Newton's first big intellectual accomplishment was to have a strongly opinionated metaphysics which supported his experimental and theoretical approach. In the contemporary world, proper metaphysics (as described above) is mostly done by physicists themselves, occasionally in cooperation with philosophers. See [1] for a fairly recent example. Similarly, proper metamathematics is most often done by mathematicians, with occasional contributions from philosophers, e.g. [2]. Any time a physicist is writing about the fundamental methodology of the discipline, or about a topic that is not, for now, empirically testable, he is doing metaphysics, often with a hefty dose of mathematics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_Reality_of_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_on_teaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_...
  - neonological 6y ago
    The problem here is you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Yeah I can meta the entire universe together if I wanted to. What’s the set of all things that can be talked about? Metaphysics and the Milesian school of thought are both elements in that set. There’s no point in this categorization however compelling you find the arguments within their respective fields.
    - routerl 6y ago
      > you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? > Yeah I can meta the entire universe together Metaphysics is very specifically about the underlying assumptions of physics. It always has been, even though the meaning of the word physics has changed wildly over time. The current meaning of "physics" dictates that it is a metaphysical question whether, for example, quantum theory or string theory are correct. This is metaphysical because it is about underlying assumptions which cannot yet be tested experimentally. You seem to be taking anyone who uses the word "metaphysics" as actually doing metaphysics, but no professional physicist or philosopher believes this. Some people may well call themselves "physicists" and then talk about ghosts, but it is nonetheless widely understood in the profession that physics is in no way about ghosts. This is similarly true of metaphysics and animism. When we speak of historical beliefs that are no longer current in civilization, then sure, animism might show up and be presented as "metaphysical", but so what? Newton was wrong about corpuscles being the fundamental unit of matter, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing physics. It just means he was wrong about part of his system of thought, which is always to be expected when looking at past thinkers.
      - neonological 6y ago
        > sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? Animism sits side by side with metaphysics under philosophy. >... When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. You can even metameta. I’m saying the legitimacy of talking about metaphysics is different from the legitimacy of say metatoilets. Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day. This isn’t history class that I’m talking about here. If some scientist is wrong about something, that hypothesis is discarded from science. Animism has not been discarded... it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science. This is the category error I’m talking about.
- namero999 6y ago
  Random speculations? Certain philosophies at least survived the test of time (we are talking about millennia) while we still have to see a scientific theory survive a handful of centuries... Of course I'm pushing back with my statement, but really claiming philosophy is "random speculations" sounds really uninformed and naive.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - neonological 6y ago
    That's the problem with philosophy. It's archaic. It doesn't self improve. Christianity and Muslims have been around almost as long as philosophy. It doesn't make their opposing views automatically valid nor does it eliminate the randomness of some arbitrary beliefs in each respective religion (why is jesus named jesus, for example).
    - namero999 6y ago
      Feel free to consciously ignore the developments of the last few thousands year, and to hold the immature view that religious myths have to be taken literally. This sounds like something my teenage nephew would say, so I have lost interest in arguing with you on these topics.
      - neonological 6y ago
        This is a personal attack which is against the rules here. I think you took my words as an attack because you’ve been personally invested in philosophy for so long defending it like a cultist who refuses to take reality at face value. Greek mythology and Chinese mythology and most mythology were invented in the past as literal explanations of reality. The penchant today to not take things literally is an excuse. Our understanding of reality has changed and the archaic explanations of of the past no longer work yet blind loyalty still binds you to religious explanations. This is why people twist the explanations and say to not take them literally. Were people in the past so stupid that they had to wrap every explanation in the symbolism of a fantastical myth? Doubtful. This is more likely the excuse made by someone who cannot reconcile rationality with there loyalty to a religion. I don’t think you actually lost interest. I think you just know you lost.
Thursday24 6y ago
> I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. It can be above, below, side-by-side, wherever. Or nowhere. Or maybe impossible to say. Whatever the relation is, where is the possibility of pretension here? Philosophers make claims, scientists make claims too. But that is the characteristic of the practitioners, not the field of study.
- neonological 6y ago
  Effort. You can create a field called the “philosophy of this rock sitting on my lawn.” And this field would fit your definition of philosophy. But there is a clear hierarchy here that is not being obeyed. Religion from certain perspectives is just made up stories. Should these made up stories be made into a field of study that is a sibling branch of science? Call it the study of religion or made up stories, no point in calling it a philosophy and giving it the same weight as science.
  - Thursday24 6y ago
    Consider Newton. He pursued physical theories, alchemy and theological studies with similar amount scholarship and zest. His physical theories obtained popularity due to its utility. And his theological and alchemical studies didn't give the world any material benefits and so the world calls those areas of his output "random speculations". But at the core of all these three attempts is a probing, speculative mind. That is my definition of philosophy, that there is an intensely curious mind, which will pour forth effort in understanding the world (including oneself). Newton's subject area was called "Natural Philosophy" for nothing. There are less "successful" philosophers and streams of philosophy, of course.
    - neonological 6y ago
      ‘A probing speculative mind” is the rule for what goes into philosophy? I’m sure that the people who came up with a technical basis for creationism also were probing and quite speculative making creationism a philosophy. Some vague “ a probing speculative mind” is not a good definition for a field of study. It’s way to broad and lacks preciseness.

neonological 6y ago

I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. I highly disagree with this. A statement made on the basis of logic or science has more weight then any sort of random speculation made in “aesthetics” yet philosophy places them on equal grounds. There is a clear error in hierarchy here similar to the phylum based nomenclature in biology.

routerl 6y ago
> Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. You've really totally misunderstood what they were describing. Metaphysics is "above" physics because it is about what the word "physics" even means. For example, Newton's first big intellectual accomplishment was to have a strongly opinionated metaphysics which supported his experimental and theoretical approach. In the contemporary world, proper metaphysics (as described above) is mostly done by physicists themselves, occasionally in cooperation with philosophers. See [1] for a fairly recent example. Similarly, proper metamathematics is most often done by mathematicians, with occasional contributions from philosophers, e.g. [2]. Any time a physicist is writing about the fundamental methodology of the discipline, or about a topic that is not, for now, empirically testable, he is doing metaphysics, often with a hefty dose of mathematics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_Reality_of_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_on_teaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_...
- neonological 6y ago
  The problem here is you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Yeah I can meta the entire universe together if I wanted to. What’s the set of all things that can be talked about? Metaphysics and the Milesian school of thought are both elements in that set. There’s no point in this categorization however compelling you find the arguments within their respective fields.
  - routerl 6y ago
    > you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? > Yeah I can meta the entire universe together Metaphysics is very specifically about the underlying assumptions of physics. It always has been, even though the meaning of the word physics has changed wildly over time. The current meaning of "physics" dictates that it is a metaphysical question whether, for example, quantum theory or string theory are correct. This is metaphysical because it is about underlying assumptions which cannot yet be tested experimentally. You seem to be taking anyone who uses the word "metaphysics" as actually doing metaphysics, but no professional physicist or philosopher believes this. Some people may well call themselves "physicists" and then talk about ghosts, but it is nonetheless widely understood in the profession that physics is in no way about ghosts. This is similarly true of metaphysics and animism. When we speak of historical beliefs that are no longer current in civilization, then sure, animism might show up and be presented as "metaphysical", but so what? Newton was wrong about corpuscles being the fundamental unit of matter, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing physics. It just means he was wrong about part of his system of thought, which is always to be expected when looking at past thinkers.
    - neonological 6y ago
      > sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? Animism sits side by side with metaphysics under philosophy. >... When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. You can even metameta. I’m saying the legitimacy of talking about metaphysics is different from the legitimacy of say metatoilets. Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day. This isn’t history class that I’m talking about here. If some scientist is wrong about something, that hypothesis is discarded from science. Animism has not been discarded... it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science. This is the category error I’m talking about.
namero999 6y ago
Random speculations? Certain philosophies at least survived the test of time (we are talking about millennia) while we still have to see a scientific theory survive a handful of centuries... Of course I'm pushing back with my statement, but really claiming philosophy is "random speculations" sounds really uninformed and naive.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- neonological 6y ago
  That's the problem with philosophy. It's archaic. It doesn't self improve. Christianity and Muslims have been around almost as long as philosophy. It doesn't make their opposing views automatically valid nor does it eliminate the randomness of some arbitrary beliefs in each respective religion (why is jesus named jesus, for example).
  - namero999 6y ago
    Feel free to consciously ignore the developments of the last few thousands year, and to hold the immature view that religious myths have to be taken literally. This sounds like something my teenage nephew would say, so I have lost interest in arguing with you on these topics.
    - neonological 6y ago
      This is a personal attack which is against the rules here. I think you took my words as an attack because you’ve been personally invested in philosophy for so long defending it like a cultist who refuses to take reality at face value. Greek mythology and Chinese mythology and most mythology were invented in the past as literal explanations of reality. The penchant today to not take things literally is an excuse. Our understanding of reality has changed and the archaic explanations of of the past no longer work yet blind loyalty still binds you to religious explanations. This is why people twist the explanations and say to not take them literally. Were people in the past so stupid that they had to wrap every explanation in the symbolism of a fantastical myth? Doubtful. This is more likely the excuse made by someone who cannot reconcile rationality with there loyalty to a religion. I don’t think you actually lost interest. I think you just know you lost.

Thursday24 6y ago

> I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. It can be above, below, side-by-side, wherever. Or nowhere. Or maybe impossible to say. Whatever the relation is, where is the possibility of pretension here? Philosophers make claims, scientists make claims too. But that is the characteristic of the practitioners, not the field of study.

neonological 6y ago
Effort. You can create a field called the “philosophy of this rock sitting on my lawn.” And this field would fit your definition of philosophy. But there is a clear hierarchy here that is not being obeyed. Religion from certain perspectives is just made up stories. Should these made up stories be made into a field of study that is a sibling branch of science? Call it the study of religion or made up stories, no point in calling it a philosophy and giving it the same weight as science.
- Thursday24 6y ago
  Consider Newton. He pursued physical theories, alchemy and theological studies with similar amount scholarship and zest. His physical theories obtained popularity due to its utility. And his theological and alchemical studies didn't give the world any material benefits and so the world calls those areas of his output "random speculations". But at the core of all these three attempts is a probing, speculative mind. That is my definition of philosophy, that there is an intensely curious mind, which will pour forth effort in understanding the world (including oneself). Newton's subject area was called "Natural Philosophy" for nothing. There are less "successful" philosophers and streams of philosophy, of course.
  - neonological 6y ago
    ‘A probing speculative mind” is the rule for what goes into philosophy? I’m sure that the people who came up with a technical basis for creationism also were probing and quite speculative making creationism a philosophy. Some vague “ a probing speculative mind” is not a good definition for a field of study. It’s way to broad and lacks preciseness.