Feelosofee is a bit pants

[Nearly Sane]

I love science,  but I do find this article chimes.


http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I love science,  but I do find this article chimes.


http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/

Scientism you see....I remember an antitheistic antagonist on the old AOL spirituality board saying science will answer all the questions that are worth asking.

[wigginhall]

I love science,  but I do find this article chimes.


http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/

A lot of it seems to be ignorance and confusion.   I recall Hawkins declaring that philosophy is dead, and then going on to describe a theory of reality, which looks remarkably philosophical to me, in his book 'The Grand Design'.   It's a bit like a creationist declaring that evolution is just a theory. 

[Shaker]

Unfortunately there's a long history of scientists being, to say the least, dismissive of philosophy (Feynman's: "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists") because it doesn't progress cumulatively and doesn't yield hard facts and figures. Of course, science is impossible to do without some philosophical footings of some sort.

[jeremyp]

I'll tell you why some scientists have contempt for (other) philosophers: it's because talking about the World without testing your ideas on it, is just talking.

[Leonard James]

I'll tell you why some scientists have contempt for (other) philosophers: it's because talking about the World without testing your ideas on it, is just talking.

That should go on the memorable quotes thread!

[Shaker]

Yes, can't argue with that.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll tell you why some scientists have contempt for (other) philosophers: it's because talking about the World without testing your ideas on it, is just talking.

It's like Dr Johnson lives!

Indeed it is just talking but then it's just talking about morality, and love, and purpose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll tell you why some scientists have contempt for (other) philosophers: it's because talking about the World without testing your ideas on it, is just talking.

I think you'll find that ideas are indispensable for that sentiment.

[Shaker]

It's like Dr Johnson lives!

Indeed it is just talking but then it's just talking about morality, and love, and purpose.

I don't disagree. But then, nothing there actually rebuts much less refutes anything that JeremyP said.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't disagree. But then, nothing there actually rebuts much less refutes anything that JeremyP said.

Not trying to do either, just pointing out that just talking is the important part.

[Shaker]

Not trying to do either, just pointing out that just talking is the important part.

Ah, well now, there you go, you see - the philosophers will agree with you; the scientists won't.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, well now, there you go, you see - the philosophers will agree with you; the scientists won't.

Except there are no such simplistic divisions. It's like Sriram talking as if no scientists can be religious, or Sass talking about 'the scientist' as if there is only one. If we don't talk about ought all the is's in the world will tell us naught of what to do.

[Udayana]

Science = "Natural philosphy"

[Shaker]

Science = "Natural philosphy"

That's what science as we understand it used to be called until a couple of centuries ago or thereabouts, until somebody remembered the Latin verb scire, 'to know' and cottoned on to the fact that while there's such a thing as a scientific methodology, the application of that methodology leads to a body of knowledge - the growing heap of stuff we can reliably and accurately know about the world - which you can't say of philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's what science as we understand it used to be called until a couple of centuries ago or thereabouts, until somebody remembered the Latin verb scire, 'to know' and cottoned on to the fact that while there's such a thing as a scientific methodology, the application of that methodology leads to a body of knowledge - the growing heap of stuff we can reliably and accurately know about the world - which you can't say of philosophy.

I am glad we have established that science is a domain on its own the .....three cheers for Gould.

Accuracy and reliability are to do with measurement and observation of matter energy.

[Sebastian Toe]

Accuracy and reliability are to do with measurement and observation of matter energy.

...then claims from anyone about subjects out-with those areas can be considered neither accurate or reliable!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...then claims from anyone about subjects out-with those areas can be considered neither accurate or reliable!

The thing about science is that it's meanings are specific and often different to those of the same word as used in a different discipline.

Shakers original statement is not as significant as he means it to be.