3 ms·

Philosophy has had many accomplishments, it's where the questions first get asked. In general it's where ideas get refined and understood enough to go out and

Philosophy has had many accomplishments, it's where the questions first get asked. In general it's where ideas get refined and understood enough to go out and be acted upon -- before it can be science it needs to through it's philosophical stages. Heidegger, an amazing existentialist, laid out a lot of problems that AI was going to have in the 50s. http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/dp/0262540673/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200063500&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/d... The study of philosophy for most undergraduates taking a few classes can be thought of as the history of human thought.

amichail 17y ago
The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?
- foldr 17y ago
  >The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. Of course it is a reasonable thing to do, e.g. "Is there any milk left in the fridge?" I suppose you're asking whether it's reasonable to ask "deep" questions without scientific training. I think that it is -- moral questions are an obvious example -- but in any case, bear in mind that most philosophers whose work touches on scientific issues _do_ have some scientific training. It's really not possible to consider all this at such an abstract level. If you have something against philosophy or philosophers, you'd do well to point out some concrete examples of what you're talking about, instead of engaging in this sort of generic scientistic whining. The biggest irony here is that your views are taken almost verbatim from a philosophical movement of the early 20th century (logical positivism). One benefit of reading some philosophy is coming to a realization of how unoriginal virtually all of your ideas are, and how much they owe to the intellectual culture you were brought up in.
- dantheman 17y ago
  What is scientific training? Logic & Mathematics? I was having a discussion in another thread about the demarcation of science and pseudoscience, and despite decades of trying the only definition is that works is consensus of other scientists. Most scientists believe physics is science while astrology is not. I'd say that I don't hold philosophers or scientists or mathematicians as the ultimate questioner. I believe that they are each skilled in different areas, and are probably best at asking questions in those areas.

amichail 17y ago

The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?

foldr 17y ago
>The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. Of course it is a reasonable thing to do, e.g. "Is there any milk left in the fridge?" I suppose you're asking whether it's reasonable to ask "deep" questions without scientific training. I think that it is -- moral questions are an obvious example -- but in any case, bear in mind that most philosophers whose work touches on scientific issues _do_ have some scientific training. It's really not possible to consider all this at such an abstract level. If you have something against philosophy or philosophers, you'd do well to point out some concrete examples of what you're talking about, instead of engaging in this sort of generic scientistic whining. The biggest irony here is that your views are taken almost verbatim from a philosophical movement of the early 20th century (logical positivism). One benefit of reading some philosophy is coming to a realization of how unoriginal virtually all of your ideas are, and how much they owe to the intellectual culture you were brought up in.
dantheman 17y ago
What is scientific training? Logic & Mathematics? I was having a discussion in another thread about the demarcation of science and pseudoscience, and despite decades of trying the only definition is that works is consensus of other scientists. Most scientists believe physics is science while astrology is not. I'd say that I don't hold philosophers or scientists or mathematicians as the ultimate questioner. I believe that they are each skilled in different areas, and are probably best at asking questions in those areas.