Philosophy Puts Brakes on Simplistic Science

CEH ^ | October 5, 2009

[GourmetDan]

Probably major depression caused by the horrifying realization that he was surrounded by people who don’t know what they think they know and don’t even want to buy a vowel.

Ya know?

[betty boop]

Outstanding article, GGG! Thank you ever so much for posting it!

[GodGunsGuts]

My pleasure :o)

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Great post. I concur 100%.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"In college , my roommate was a Philosophy major (stuck in the dorms with him). All he did was drink and flunk out."

Is your argument?

1. My roomate was a philosophy major
2. My roomate was a loser, i.e. he just drank and flunked out.
3. Therefore all philosphy majors are losers.

If so, then you have committed the 'hasty generalization' fallacy. You can read up on it here:

hasty generalization

[Wacka]

Yes. They don’t have to actually do any studying. Just pontificate.

Here is a song to back up my point:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya
‘Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away—
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
‘I drink, therefore I am.’

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he’s pissed.

Here’s a video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"Self-serving from beginning to end."

Scientists still trot out the falsifiability principle, which BTW was developed by logical positivist philosophers, even though the falsifiability principle fails its own falsifiability test. This puts them in the same intellectual league as liberals who believe in relativism because some guy named Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity.

Scientists depend on a large percentage of their confreres being honest and competent to validate proposed theories, and yet there is no scientific reason for people being honest or competent.

In order to postulate and validate theories scientists need to utilize concepts. The importance of a concept is in the information it contains rather than how it is materially represented. 'Two and two are four' is a concept that expresses the same information whether it is sound waves emitted from a person's vocal chords, a particular arrangement of atoms in a person's brain, graphite markings on a piece of paper, or magnetic recordings on tape.

It may be the case that without any matter (or energy) there would be no way to record any concepts and there would be no concepts. However, it is the case that there is matter and energy, and it is the case that the nature of concepts is such that the particular material representation is ... for lack of a better word ... immaterial.

So basically scientists rely on immaterial objects to conduct research on the material world, while at the same time disparaging those who utilize immaterial objects to theorize about concepts themselves.

If there is a more self-serving group out there than philosophy-hating materialist scientists, it would be hard to find it.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

If they didn't have to do any studying then how was it possible for him to flunk out?

BTW, I love that song.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping, dearest sister in Christ!

[TopQuark]

I understand that you have tried to present a sketch of a line of thought, and it would be unfair to hold it to full standard of logic. Some statements are not only unsupported but also so strong that they hardly stand a chance of being correct as stated. The (logic) transitions are most disturbing, however. I will try to write a detailed response if I can, but cannot promise. The last transition is really problematic on both logical and factual grounds:

"[scientists] disparaging those who utilize immaterial objects to theorize about concepts themselves."

You are, as many philosophers in this area, being needlessly defensive. Most scientists (theoretical physicists in particular) simply ignore what philosophers say; they have no opinion of philosophers and certainly do not disparage them. It is true, they chuckle on occasion when they read some philosophers theorizing about this or that construct and wonder why they, scientists dealing with that concept every day, cannot even recognize under the pen of the philosopher. I've never heard it gone farther than that.

My philosophy friends, and the attendees of a few of philosophy seminars to which I went, exhibit however a visible insecurity. I think it is rooted in a simple fact that a physicist working on X can read whatever scientists and philosophers write about X, but not the philosopher. It's hard to tell yourself that you have mastered a certain view of a concept when you cannot even read what others have written about it.

I find it somewhat entertaining that the nonexistent "disparaging" is also ascribed within physics: some beginning experimentalists are sure that theorists look down upon them. The relationship is similar: a theorist can read an experimental paper, but not conversely. And the attribution is equally false.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

In my previous post the phrase "philosophy-hating materialist scientists" could be interpreted to suggest that I believe all scientists are philosophy-hating materialists.

What I meant by that was those particular scientists that hate philosophy and are materialist.

I myself am a philosophy loving scientist who is not a materialist.

All of the philosophers I have met, unlike those you seem to hang out with, do not exhibit any 'visible inecurity'. The philosophers I have met are quite content with their lot. After all, they are freely choosing to pursue a career that is generally looked down upon and trivialized. They only chose philosophy because they are truly interested in the subject.

I look forward to any rebuttal of my opinion. I am not a philosopher, I don't even play one on TV. I have just taken a few courses and read a number of philosophy books.

Your initial assessment of my critique of your opinion is spot on: I do philosophy like I play chess, I make bold moves that seem promising and even intelligent, but ultimately result in an embarrassing defeat.