7 ms·

Again the people who say Philosophy is dead to science I say UGH learn from history. Philosophy and Ethics are still the heart of progress. How many Scientific

by baldfat 13y ago

Again the people who say Philosophy is dead to science I say UGH learn from history. Philosophy and Ethics are still the heart of progress. How many Scientific papers that were "peer reviewed" have we now learned that the science behind the scientific papers have seriously been lacking. The cost is in the suffering and deaths of patients who didn't get help needed that research would have found if they didn't have to chase all these rabbit trails. Biased and mad PS Theology/Philosophy Degree holder and my son is named after my favorite Philosopher. PSS My other son died of cancer (Bone Cancer) where there has been zero progress in mortality rate over the last 30 years.

pfortuny 13y ago
I have only to [partly, not in such a clear-cut way] agree with this. Our era will be part of "The Age of the Feuilleton," as in the Glass-Bead Game... What a pity, what a shame.
- binarymax 13y ago
  I also like the Futurama description: "The Stupid Ages"
orionblastar 13y ago
Nothing like being given a fake cure and forcing researchers to go down the wrong rabbit hole for that cure because the original research paper had fudged the numbers to pass the test and the peer review was done by a sock puppet. My father died of cancer in 2010, now like him I have a lump in my chest and it is really painful. The Philosophy in science came from many different religions, so naturally skeptics just reject it because a religion came up with it. Might lead to a cure for cancer, but got to reject it because it was made by a religion? Socrates came up with the theory of the atom, Francis Bacon helped bring about the scientific method. Yet do we reject those things because of the religion involved?
- EpicEng 13y ago
  Where does religion come into play here? I'm unaware of anyone rejecting the atomic theory or the scientific method (seriously, what scientist could reject the scientific method?)
delluminatus 13y ago
A scientist would respond: How many ethical theories were accepted by contemporaries, only to later be shown to be flawed? If you want to attribute deaths to bad science, then you must also attribute far more to bad philosophy.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  Thats not really fair. The point I think the Parent is trying to make is. Remember what science is and how it works and why it's useful.
  - delluminatus 13y ago
    It's perfectly fair. What's not fair about it? Science is a loose methodology. But scientific institutions are fallible. Scientists are fallible. And the methodology is fallible as well, especially in the short term. The whole point is that even if mistakes are made in the small, progress is made in the large. I don't really understand the point you (or the parent) are trying to make.
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      You are cherry picking one part of his argument and claiming that this is what he claims. He isn't only talking about ethics.
      - delluminatus 13y ago
        What is he talking about?
return0 13y ago
> Biased and mad And sour grapes. And you are not doing any credit to Philosophers by making it sound like it's science vs philosophy. Or by dismissing everyone else's work from your armchair without showing any hint of your own work or any alternatives. And finally, we should listen to you because you have a Degree?
DangerousPie 13y ago
I don't understand your argument at all. What does philosophy have to do with any of this? Are you claiming that if more people were to study philosophy, this would make the world more "moral", leading to less scientific fraud? I see things like this as part of the cost of doing more and more advanced research at a fast pace. You are bound to have a few misses, but all in all you still make progress.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  Popper, Kuhn etc where laying the groundwork for how to validate phenomena and add facts to our models of the world. The black swan is a good example of this problem (i.e. what lead to why we try to falsify things.) Without a discussion about scientific methods no science and therefore Philosophy is important.

by baldfat 13y ago

pfortuny 13y ago

I have only to [partly, not in such a clear-cut way] agree with this. Our era will be part of "The Age of the Feuilleton," as in the Glass-Bead Game... What a pity, what a shame.

binarymax 13y ago
I also like the Futurama description: "The Stupid Ages"

orionblastar 13y ago

Nothing like being given a fake cure and forcing researchers to go down the wrong rabbit hole for that cure because the original research paper had fudged the numbers to pass the test and the peer review was done by a sock puppet. My father died of cancer in 2010, now like him I have a lump in my chest and it is really painful. The Philosophy in science came from many different religions, so naturally skeptics just reject it because a religion came up with it. Might lead to a cure for cancer, but got to reject it because it was made by a religion? Socrates came up with the theory of the atom, Francis Bacon helped bring about the scientific method. Yet do we reject those things because of the religion involved?

EpicEng 13y ago
Where does religion come into play here? I'm unaware of anyone rejecting the atomic theory or the scientific method (seriously, what scientist could reject the scientific method?)

delluminatus 13y ago

A scientist would respond: How many ethical theories were accepted by contemporaries, only to later be shown to be flawed? If you want to attribute deaths to bad science, then you must also attribute far more to bad philosophy.

ThomPete 13y ago
Thats not really fair. The point I think the Parent is trying to make is. Remember what science is and how it works and why it's useful.
- delluminatus 13y ago
  It's perfectly fair. What's not fair about it? Science is a loose methodology. But scientific institutions are fallible. Scientists are fallible. And the methodology is fallible as well, especially in the short term. The whole point is that even if mistakes are made in the small, progress is made in the large. I don't really understand the point you (or the parent) are trying to make.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    You are cherry picking one part of his argument and claiming that this is what he claims. He isn't only talking about ethics.
    - delluminatus 13y ago
      What is he talking about?

return0 13y ago

> Biased and mad And sour grapes. And you are not doing any credit to Philosophers by making it sound like it's science vs philosophy. Or by dismissing everyone else's work from your armchair without showing any hint of your own work or any alternatives. And finally, we should listen to you because you have a Degree?

DangerousPie 13y ago

I don't understand your argument at all. What does philosophy have to do with any of this? Are you claiming that if more people were to study philosophy, this would make the world more "moral", leading to less scientific fraud? I see things like this as part of the cost of doing more and more advanced research at a fast pace. You are bound to have a few misses, but all in all you still make progress.

ThomPete 13y ago
Popper, Kuhn etc where laying the groundwork for how to validate phenomena and add facts to our models of the world. The black swan is a good example of this problem (i.e. what lead to why we try to falsify things.) Without a discussion about scientific methods no science and therefore Philosophy is important.