3 ms·

I hold the minority position that philosophy is a useful means of getting information about the world around us and it's only cultural factors that happened in

by vivekd 3y ago

I hold the minority position that philosophy is a useful means of getting information about the world around us and it's only cultural factors that happened in the 1700s (movement against rationalism) that makes us blind to it. That's hard to see when we talk about more recently popular philosophical topics like ethics or existentialism. But hacker News also had an interesting discussion recently on Popper and the philosophy of science ( what counts as science). There was another discussion a while back in the philosophy of math - what is math, what if anything separates mathematical knowledge from other types of knowledge. Viewed from this framework, I think most people would agree that philosophy is useful and an important means of ascertaining valuable knowledge.

kbrkbr 3y ago
I have a genuine question that seems to fit here. It's bugging me for a long time, so any feedback is very welcome. I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. There are plenty of takes what math "is" philosophically, and there are so many opponents and overcomers of Popper. I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics.
- vacuity 3y ago
  Yeah, philosophy isn't a means to know more. I would describe it as a means to sharpen your mind to better understand with and process the world.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. In domains where it is suitable/adequate (be mindful of ambiguous, potentially misinformative language when engaged in study and communication, lest other humans pick up the bad habit and humanity becomes confused). >Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy can be used to have interesting conversations, at least. >Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. Things are not always what they seem, because seems itself is a heuristic. >On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. It could also suggest that the entirety of reality isn't deterministic like the physical realm (which is mostly only what science studies, and most people have the impression that science studies everything (they even have a Theory of "Everything"!)). >I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. I would say that via philosophy, one could develop a proposition that science uses the planet as its playground. For example: without science, could we have achieved this level of global warming? >It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics. I've encountered many thousands of people who claim with extreme certainty that science is essentially or even literally the only game in town when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  It's a source of knowledge because you can extract an idea that works and in hindsight is expected to work. Consensus doesn't happen because consensus is easily dominated by social factors, science suffers from this too, though it has only one case of encouragement of a lack of consensus.

by vivekd 3y ago

kbrkbr 3y ago

I have a genuine question that seems to fit here. It's bugging me for a long time, so any feedback is very welcome. I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. There are plenty of takes what math "is" philosophically, and there are so many opponents and overcomers of Popper. I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics.

vacuity 3y ago
Yeah, philosophy isn't a means to know more. I would describe it as a means to sharpen your mind to better understand with and process the world.
mistermann 3y ago
> I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. In domains where it is suitable/adequate (be mindful of ambiguous, potentially misinformative language when engaged in study and communication, lest other humans pick up the bad habit and humanity becomes confused). >Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy can be used to have interesting conversations, at least. >Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. Things are not always what they seem, because seems itself is a heuristic. >On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. It could also suggest that the entirety of reality isn't deterministic like the physical realm (which is mostly only what science studies, and most people have the impression that science studies everything (they even have a Theory of "Everything"!)). >I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. I would say that via philosophy, one could develop a proposition that science uses the planet as its playground. For example: without science, could we have achieved this level of global warming? >It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics. I've encountered many thousands of people who claim with extreme certainty that science is essentially or even literally the only game in town when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
It's a source of knowledge because you can extract an idea that works and in hindsight is expected to work. Consensus doesn't happen because consensus is easily dominated by social factors, science suffers from this too, though it has only one case of encouragement of a lack of consensus.