 |
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu
I don't see it. Could you enlighten us? |
Typical.
if we really want to know why a certain scientific theory is right we have to look at the reasons why and the reasons for that, and the reasons for that and so on. In the end you end up asking philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge. In other words, questions about realism and anti realism, about reduction, scepticism, holism, supervenience, concepts, representationalism and emergence.
Perhaps you don't, you certainly don't need to to engage in the practical business of science, but people who are interested in knowledge for its own sake do, including our friend Albert Einstein who remarked, "science without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all - primitive and muddled" although he did warn us about the practical consequences of scientists focusing too much on epistemology.
But I suppose that you lot are just so much brighter than he was. He must have been a really lousy scientist to have been so wrong. 
You can add to this that science can't really tell us anything at all about value, which happens to be the most important thing in life (trying thinking of what living life would be like if you ignored the notion of value). That's why we snobby philosophers let you science peasants do the donkey work and invent "nice" things while we bother with stuff that matters.
So if you think scientific results are so great, what do they tell us about the notion of value? What political system do they offer support for?
Of course the usual response of the science loving philistine is to deny any objective notion of value, usually without an argument or a really lame one like Asher's "everyone has their own morals, so there must be no moral knowledge" which is a bluntly fallacious inference. But essentially it is a philosophical question anyway.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
Typical.
if we really want to know why a certain scientific theory is right we have to look at the reasons why and the reasons for that, and the reasons for that and so on. |

You certainly don't have to do that.
YOU do, as a philosopher, that doesn't make it necessary.
In the end you reach a deadend anyway, going back to Godel's ideas...
quote: You can add to this that science can't really tell us anything at all about value |
Neither can philosophers, alas. They manage to argue about it and perhaps convince eachother, everyone else shrugs and uses what they find useful and what they like.
They don't need a philosopher to explain to them the value of a computer, for example. Well, maybe a philosopher would require an explanation...
quote: Of course the usual response of the science loving philistine is to deny any objective notion of value, usually without an argument or a really lame one like Asher's "everyone has their own morals, so there must be no moral knowledge" |
Moral knowledge is what you're raised with.
Arguing about morals as if they're absolute right/wrong and it's some big knowledgebank that can be taught in class is so ridiculous I wonder why Philosophy has lasted this long in universities.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
A scientist could tell you your wasting time, and we all know that time is priceless.  |
How? Certainly not with anything that they picked up out of a science book.
quote: Of course not, otherwise you'd be out of a job.
You've trained yourself to ponder the unimportant, ponder the trivial, ponder the useless to the point where you've somehow convinced yourself it is useful and relevant, and even vital. |
It is - people use it every day.
quote: People believe what they want, a lot of times their beliefs are inconsistent, and a lot of times you certainly won't agree with them. |
So what - most people are amenable to argument to some degree and public policy can't operate like this since it has to be accountable to the law and we know that lawyers love exposing inconsistencies.
quote: Such is life as a human being. Surely a true philosopher could see that...  |
Perhaps, it is for some people. But it certainly isn't the case when a hospital wants to formulate policy.
quote: The reason I asked these questions, of course, is because if you ask them to 10 people, you won't get the same ten answers. |
If you ask ten people a difficult mathematical problem you will probably get ten different answers too. So what? - this proves nothing.
quote: I don't understand how you can't realize how relative ethics are to people's upbringing, religion, and beliefs, and why it's stupid to teach them in a classroom... |
Teaching ethics? We aren't teaching people to be good or what values to hold (this isn't a morality school). We are teaching them to be better moral reasoners by introducing them to basic concepts like intrinsic and instrumental value and more complex ones such as deontological arguments as opposed to teleological arguments.
I can't understand how you believe that what is relative to people's ubringing etc. has any real value in arguments. Some people are brought up in crazy religious communities to believe ridiculous and stupid things - so what? That doesn't mean they are right, even if we can't change their opinions. The fact that people have lots of different beliefs in no way entails that all of them, or even most of them are right, or should be listened to, or are informed on the subject. People who are content to believe what their parents tell them just because are in my opinion utter morons.
quote: So in other words, philosophers are high school debate club members? |
Very funny. Partly true, but they are just much more informed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
How? Certainly not with anything that they picked up out of a science book. |
Being a scientist and being intellectually capable are not mutually exclusive...
Philosophers are just glorified thinkers, without any real application.
Scientists are often thinkers as well as scientists, it's easy to be both and you don't need to go to philosophy lectures to be a thinker.
Philosophers like to think of themselves as great thinkers, so they take silly philosophy courses and are taught things some people can just figure out intuitively (see the abortion issue with obiwan/Frogger)
quote: It is - people use it every day. |
Right, in the same sense that people breathe every day -- you don't see university classes on how to breathe...
"So what"??
It renders the whole concept of teaching morals to people as fruitless and useless!
If not everyone has the same morals, how can you teach it as if it is known what everyone's morals SHOULD be?
quote: Perhaps, it is for some people. But it certainly isn't the case when a hospital wants to formulate policy. |
And why would the hospital listen to some pretentious philosopher rather than the culture of the community they live in?
quote: If you ask ten people a difficult mathematical problem you will probably get ten different answers too. |
What kind of math do you guys take over there??
If you ask people 1 + 1 = 2, some may get it wrong, but they'd be morons.
Are you implying that there IS "correct" and "uncorrect" in ethics like there is in mathematics?
You're totally out there, man...
quote: Teaching ethics? We aren't teaching people to be good or what values to hold (this isn't a morality school). We are teaching them to be better moral reasoners by introducing them to basic concepts like intrinsic and instrumental value and more complex ones such as deontological arguments as opposed to teleological arguments. |
So you're teaching people how to think and how to decide what's ethically right...
You still don't see a problem with that?
Hmm. Pretty shallow mind for a thinker.
quote: I can't understand how you believe that what is relative to people's ubringing etc. has any real value in arguments. |
Because that's how the world works.
You can act all high and mighty with your intentionally obtuse terminology for simple concepts, but when it comes down to it, people's morals are their own. And a philosopher isn't going to change that.
That's why I know they're relative, and that's why I know philosophy of ethics is a waste of time and money.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I actually agree that there is some true ethics out there
I don't see how a philosopher is going to be any more like to get it than some Bushman though (actually probably the bushman is more likely)
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Frogger
What do you mean by "true ethics"?
And it would be hard for you not to believe that, given your belief in an interested God... |
I think that you know what I mean from the reading of your second line
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|