6 ms·

Science has nothing to do with critical thinking, science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. Why and how prediction and

Science has nothing to do with critical thinking, science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. Why and how prediction and explanation of phenomena constitute good critical thinking is epistemology, a philosophical concern. Evidence abounds in modern philosophy, although what counts as evidence and how evidence should operate in arguments is an open question -- which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy over naive empiricism. Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published literature by contemporary philosophers.

lutusp 13y ago
> Science has nothing to do with critical thinking ... And I should take a philosophy course to be qualified to comment on philosophy? Science has everything to do with critical thinking. Without the scientific tradition of critical thinking, Bigfoot and the Loch News monster must exist on the ground they haven't been proven not to exist. > ... science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step without which it's not science. > ... which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy over naive empiricism. The only reason philosophers (and others) live beyond the age of 40 is the naive empiricism we see all around us. As to philosophical arguments holding primacy over others, this hasn't been true for over 100 years, since the day when science combined critical thinking with reality-testing. Philosophers don't reality-test, and they don't have a reliable basis for falsifying theories. The proof is that deconstructive post-modernism is alive and well among philosophers, even though it is a self-canceling notion that produces laughter among scientists and other critical thinkers. Q: "What is deconstructive post-modernism?" A: "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and that everything is a matter of opinion." Q: "But shouldn't that idea logically be applied to post-modernism itself, thus nullifying it?" A: "Can you run that by me again? I'm a philosopher, the idea of self-reference is out of my depth." > Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published literature by contemporary philosophers. The problem is not that I don't know what philosophers think about, the problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely typical example.
- oblique63 13y ago
  > The problem is not that I don't know what philosophers think about, the problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely typical example. It seems that is the only branch of philosophy you are familiar with, because what you are doing is generalizing your misinformed notions of one school of thought and applying it to an entire field. A good critical thinking philosopher would not do that, or at least be so sure of himself while doing it. > "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and that everything is a matter of opinion." This is beyond out-dated as a useful school of thought. Again, If you read Kant and Popper, they outlined why thinking along those lines is impractical and unproductive, which clearly you seem to agree with. > You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step without which it's not science. This is true, however like I said, sir Karl Popper was the one that entirely defined this notion of falsifiability you're talking about. Furthermore, something can still be 'scientific' if it follows the traditional scientific method, but a proper scientific theory cannot be formed without valid falsifiability. And to go back to your previous response: > Is it your position that only those who have taken philosophy courses are qualified to criticize the field? No, but it would be much more productive for society if people were more open to understanding the fields they hold strong opinions about before resorting to make misguided generalizations about them. This applies just as much to attacking philosophy the way you are, as it does to people who argue against vaccination/GMOs/whatever; anti-intellectualism is anti-intellectualism. Arguing as if from a stance of higher intellectual ground while making straw-man arguments everywhere is not a very fruitful argumentation technique. Like I mentioned above, it seems you actually largely agree with a large important branch of philosophy here, yet you don't seem to be aware of it and are dismissing the entire field. 'Thinking Critically' has been thoroughly thought out by many philosophers throughout history, and that is what led to both Science and Mathematics; Philosophy wasn't just some fanciful step-cousin of literature, it's entire purpose was to formalize thought with the aims of eliminating the illogical. So again, if you actually are interested in understanding why what you are saying is misinformed, please do read Popper at the very least his 'On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance' and 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' papers, because his thoughts are still prevalent in modern science and I think you will largely agree with them.

lutusp 13y ago

> Science has nothing to do with critical thinking ... And I should take a philosophy course to be qualified to comment on philosophy? Science has everything to do with critical thinking. Without the scientific tradition of critical thinking, Bigfoot and the Loch News monster must exist on the ground they haven't been proven not to exist. > ... science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step without which it's not science. > ... which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy over naive empiricism. The only reason philosophers (and others) live beyond the age of 40 is the naive empiricism we see all around us. As to philosophical arguments holding primacy over others, this hasn't been true for over 100 years, since the day when science combined critical thinking with reality-testing. Philosophers don't reality-test, and they don't have a reliable basis for falsifying theories. The proof is that deconstructive post-modernism is alive and well among philosophers, even though it is a self-canceling notion that produces laughter among scientists and other critical thinkers. Q: "What is deconstructive post-modernism?" A: "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and that everything is a matter of opinion." Q: "But shouldn't that idea logically be applied to post-modernism itself, thus nullifying it?" A: "Can you run that by me again? I'm a philosopher, the idea of self-reference is out of my depth." > Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published literature by contemporary philosophers. The problem is not that I don't know what philosophers think about, the problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely typical example.

oblique63 13y ago
> The problem is not that I don't know what philosophers think about, the problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely typical example. It seems that is the only branch of philosophy you are familiar with, because what you are doing is generalizing your misinformed notions of one school of thought and applying it to an entire field. A good critical thinking philosopher would not do that, or at least be so sure of himself while doing it. > "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and that everything is a matter of opinion." This is beyond out-dated as a useful school of thought. Again, If you read Kant and Popper, they outlined why thinking along those lines is impractical and unproductive, which clearly you seem to agree with. > You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step without which it's not science. This is true, however like I said, sir Karl Popper was the one that entirely defined this notion of falsifiability you're talking about. Furthermore, something can still be 'scientific' if it follows the traditional scientific method, but a proper scientific theory cannot be formed without valid falsifiability. And to go back to your previous response: > Is it your position that only those who have taken philosophy courses are qualified to criticize the field? No, but it would be much more productive for society if people were more open to understanding the fields they hold strong opinions about before resorting to make misguided generalizations about them. This applies just as much to attacking philosophy the way you are, as it does to people who argue against vaccination/GMOs/whatever; anti-intellectualism is anti-intellectualism. Arguing as if from a stance of higher intellectual ground while making straw-man arguments everywhere is not a very fruitful argumentation technique. Like I mentioned above, it seems you actually largely agree with a large important branch of philosophy here, yet you don't seem to be aware of it and are dismissing the entire field. 'Thinking Critically' has been thoroughly thought out by many philosophers throughout history, and that is what led to both Science and Mathematics; Philosophy wasn't just some fanciful step-cousin of literature, it's entire purpose was to formalize thought with the aims of eliminating the illogical. So again, if you actually are interested in understanding why what you are saying is misinformed, please do read Popper at the very least his 'On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance' and 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' papers, because his thoughts are still prevalent in modern science and I think you will largely agree with them.