25-02-2003 17:36									#121
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The best philosophers come from physics. Philosophers coming from the humanities are usually not so bright, although there are exceptions.

What a ridiculous statement when used to "prove" the claim that philosophy is useful in physics.

you do understand the difference between a->b and b->a, don't you?

	25-02-2003 17:42									#122
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Ummm, atomic theory is a product of philosophy, Asher. Democritus...

What a consistently overstated achievement.

Democritus: everything has a smallest part
Everybody else in ancient Greece: no they don't

2 millennia later people discover the atom as a result of actual experimentation and systemic theoretical work. People look back at what some Greek idiot said because of his crap reasoning and think: Hey! This guy's a frigging genius!



Atomic theory is the result of the work of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Democritus contributed nothing whatsoever to it.

	25-02-2003 17:44									#123
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: (which he didn't pull our of his ass - he had reasons for it)

I've read his reasoning. Have you? It's no more or less convincing than the reasoning of the majority of ancient Greek philosophers (who were against it).

Neither side had any merit.

	25-02-2003 19:52									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: Ummm, atomic theory is a product of philosophy, Asher. Democritus... What a consistently overstated achievement. Democritus: everything has a smallest part Everybody else in ancient Greece: no they don't 2 millennia later people discover the atom as a result of actual experimentation and systemic theoretical work. People look back at what some Greek idiot said because of his crap reasoning and think: Hey! This guy's a frigging genius! Atomic theory is the result of the work of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Democritus contributed nothing whatsoever to it.

Democritis contributed the idea that matter was made up of smaller indivisible bits. That idea did not die out (although it was unpopular) and it re-emerged in the 1500's. The fact that Democritis had no scientific evidence for his ideas doesnt make them any less important. Good scientists have lots of ideas that they cant immediately prove. How much evidence was there for black and white holes when they were postulated?

Personally, I think many science students and scientists would benefit from an appreciation of philosophy. Unlike Asher, I dont want universities to become technical institutes (and I think too many have gone too far in that direction already). Science is not about making stuff for the public.

	25-02-2003 20:03									#125
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH How much evidence was there for black and white holes when they were postulated?

White holes, although mathematically feasible, can not physically exist.

	25-02-2003 22:03									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree with a lot of what Asher is getting at.

Today philosophy is a lot of hindsight, and explinations for what occured. Their explinations, however, address the thought process that occured to obtain such results, more so on the "actual" methods, or performed actions, that obtained those results.

I will agree that back in the day, ya know yore, that philosophy was a sensible field. In fact, as I look over the ancients I see a lot of philosophers that were also scientists (i.e. Pythagoras, the Sulva Sutras, etc. to name a couple). It was a time were logic was overcoming religious dogma, where reason was battling against theocracy. There was a time of great discovery. I would contribute scientific method, the mergance of modern science, and the application and or emergance of scientific method to development of many great discoveries in nature.

However, and there always is a 'but', what is it that philosophy has become today? Mainly, in my opinion, it has become what I mentioned above; rhetoric and regurgitation. Even Jung presents nothing new to what already happens. Stating the obvious does nothing, proving and understanding the obvious so that one may learn how to control it gives the world.

Whereas the development of logic, or nonreligious though to explian the world, allowed one to develop a method by which to control the world, redefining or rehashing such old ideas does nothing.

I must interject on the matter of the "laughing philosopher", Democritus. I think he was a kook, who just threw out random ideas. The fact that one of them was actually true is no surprise. If you believe that he was a genius you might as well believe that Nostradamous was seer.

Philosophy has gone the way of the wind, and like the ancient kingdoms it set the stage for the way things are today, yet doesn't exist as an independent state anymore. It has been fused and meshed within the applicable sciences, it has taken new forms within laws and theories of these sciences, and in all regards has vanished.

Today it is no more than a history lesson, and an explination for what will happen once it has occured.

There are three types of people:
1. Those who make things happen - hard scientist
2. Those who watch things happen - social scientist
3. And those who wonder what happened - philosophers

	25-02-2003 22:18									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

What a load of crap. First of all Dalton merely took over most of the Democritean theory and added to it a few things that he had discovered by observation. Nevertheless there is no reason why he should have chosen the theory he did - there's a small matter called the underdetermination of theory by evidence.

Secondly, this silly argument doesn't apply to the Platonic discovery as reported by Penrose. That is the sort of idea that cannot be discovered by empirical observation. No one has said anything worthwhile against this yet.

Thirdly, philosophers are currently doing work that no one else is doing. Stuff like the attempt at the nomological reduction of mental operations to physical laws. Some of the work on this is done by neuroscientists, some by philosophers. It's an interesting topic.

Most of the people in this thread have demonstrated a profound ignorance of what philosophers actually do.

Jung isn't a philosopher.

	25-02-2003 22:22									#128
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: The best philosophers come from physics. Philosophers coming from the humanities are usually not so bright, although there are exceptions. What a ridiculous statement when used to "prove" the claim that philosophy is useful in physics. you do understand the difference between a->b and b->a, don't you?

It was just a statement per se. It was not intended to serve as a proof.

	25-02-2003 22:25									#129
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Japher There are three types of people: 1. Those who make things happen - hard scientist 2. Those who watch things happen - social scientist 3. And those who wonder what happened - philosophers

And so what? Someone has to try to find the sense of what happened. It's part of the process.

	25-02-2003 22:33									#130
	Support Apolyton

Its also part of the scientific process (at least it is in my lab).

	25-02-2003 22:39									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu So basically, philosophers are the waterboys of academia, but the players have all brought their own gatorade. The poor waterboys are forced to stick to the sidelines and pretend to be useful.

Perhaps the whole system of philosophers' training and employment is seriously flawed. But this doesn't mean that philosophy and philosophers are not needed. Just fix the system.

	25-02-2003 22:47									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Its also part of the scientific process (at least it is in my lab).

That's great. And philosophers can also take part in this process if you discovery is worth it. Unlike hard specialists, they do it on a more general and global level.

	25-02-2003 22:57									#133
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Agathon should do some proper research. What would you do in a 'philosophy PhD'? Sit around in coffee shops drinking absinthe and wearing togas?

	25-02-2003 23:03									#134
	Tired of ads?

quote: And so what? Someone has to try to find the sense of what happened. It's part of the process.

So what? Exactly.

quote: First of all Dalton merely took over most of the Democritean theory and added to it a few things that he had discovered by observation. Nevertheless there is no reason why he should have chosen the theory he did - there's a small matter called the underdetermination of theory by evidence.

A few things? I don't want to argue that conception is more important than application, but there was a lot more than just a few things added. Also, there was a lot more to Dalton coming to a conclusion that just happened to coincide with something a Greek had happened to mention. I see nothing about Dalton going "hey I wonder if that kook was right" and then going out with this theory in hand in attempt to prove/disprove it. His discoveries came through scientific advancement in measurements, and an analysis of such results. Need I point out that atomic theory is still just a theory? Yet, is one based on physical evidence, not on rational/irrational thought.

quote: Secondly, this silly argument doesn't apply to the Platonic discovery as reported by Penrose. That is the sort of idea that cannot be discovered by empirical observation. No one has said anything worthwhile against this yet.

Platonic discovery? You mean theory, don't you? Penrose is a putz, who is grasping at straws. Not until a credible measuring system is established for separating mind activity from brain activity will he be anything but. It is a great theory, but what does it help with? What does he plan to do with this idea? These are the question we have been asking, and all we get in response are theories, more ideas, more thoughts. All of which are swimming in a sea of ambiguity. Anyone can say there are diamonds in those hills, wait a few thousand years, and be right. Perhaps Penrose may be right, or maybe Hofstadter is, but debating over issues such as these is worthless.

I stick with this review of his book.

quote: Thirdly, philosophers are currently doing work that no one else is doing. Stuff like the attempt at the nomological reduction of mental operations to physical laws. Some of the work on this is done by neuroscientists, some by philosophers. It's an interesting topic.

I know nothing of this, but it seems if they are working with neuroscientist that they are looking for "hard" evidence and not just abstract views on the topic. I am sure this is interesting and will look into it.

quote: Jung isn't a philosopher.

Touche

Rebutt:

I think I have adequatly expressed my admiration for philosophers of the past, and perhaps I am ignorant of the role of todays philosophers. Yet, I hold firmly to my idealogy, being a "hard science" guy and all, that without proof a theory is worthless. Most modern day theories have hard evidence one way or the other of natural occurances. When we begin arguing abstract ideas, that is where I draw the line. Philosophy may have its place but should not exist as its own entity anymore. Rather, it should lie within fields such as theoretical physics, classical chemistry, and other various social sciences. For being able to come up with believable ideas lends nothing towards its application. Thus, a PhD in such a field should lend way towards applications of a thought, and not just the creation of one. Of course I am speaking without any understanding of what is taught at that level of instruction, merely speaking from that which have read and experienced.

	25-02-2003 23:04									#135
	Got spare money?

quote: Perhaps the whole system of philosophers' training and employment is seriously flawed. But this doesn't mean that philosophy and philosophers are not needed. Just fix the system.

Novel idea.

	25-02-2003 23:05									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Agathon should do some proper research. What would you do in a 'philosophy PhD'? Sit around in coffee shops drinking absinthe and wearing togas?

I used that method before devising my last vaccine strategy.

	26-02-2003 04:24									#137
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Japher A few things? I don't want to argue that conception is more important than application, but there was a lot more than just a few things added. Also, there was a lot more to Dalton coming to a conclusion that just happened to coincide with something a Greek had happened to mention. I see nothing about Dalton going "hey I wonder if that kook was right" and then going out with this theory in hand in attempt to prove/disprove it. His discoveries came through scientific advancement in measurements, and an analysis of such results. Need I point out that atomic theory is still just a theory? Yet, is one based on physical evidence, not on rational/irrational thought.

It is also underdetermined by the evidence which is why conceptual creation a la Democritus is important. Science (and philosophy) also made much use of the Atomist's distinction between primary and secondary qualities.

quote: Platonic discovery? You mean theory, don't you?

How about invention? It doesn't make much of a difference. If you think that scientists just sit down and conduct a theory neutral investigation of "real facts" without any invention you are sorely mistaken. Theories are underdetermined by evidence.

quote: Penrose is a putz, who is grasping at straws. Not until a credible measuring system is established for separating mind activity from brain activity will he be anything but.

The quality of Penrose's thought notwithstanding the point being made was about Plato. I notice you haven't said anything worthwile about that. One problem philosophers of mind are thinking about is that it may be the concepts that we are using that prevent us from establishing such a measuring system.

quote: It is a great theory, but what does it help with? What does he plan to do with this idea? These are the question we have been asking, and all we get in response are theories, more ideas, more thoughts. All of which are swimming in a sea of ambiguity. Anyone can say there are diamonds in those hills, wait a few thousand years, and be right. Perhaps Penrose may be right, or maybe Hofstadter is, but debating over issues such as these is worthless.

Eh? Sometimes the problems we have are not ones that hard evidence can solve; sometimes they are the results of conceptual confusion. That is where many philosophers work.

quote: I know nothing of this, but it seems if they are working with neuroscientist that they are looking for "hard" evidence and not just abstract views on the topic. I am sure this is interesting and will look into it.

No they aren't. They are trying to work out whether it is possible to perform a reduction of mental concepts to physical ones without losing anything worthwhile in the reduction. This is, in my view a conceptual problem since I tend to think that mental states are identical with physical states and that it might be worth just dumping our mental vocabulary. This is a conceptual problem and not an empirical one.

quote: I think I have adequatly expressed my admiration for philosophers of the past, and perhaps I am ignorant of the role of todays philosophers. Yet, I hold firmly to my idealogy, being a "hard science" guy and all, that without proof a theory is worthless.

Godel?

quote: Most modern day theories have hard evidence one way or the other of natural occurances.

The hard evidence doesn't count the way you think it does. An infinite number of theories can fit the facts. The choice between them is largely pragmatic. Philosophical problems are hard to solve, if not impossible but acknowledging this doesn't make them go away, nor does it mean that we should stop thinking about them.

Anyway, until someone comes up with a solution to the problem of induction, science will always be to some extent a matter of faith.

Philosophers are good at what could be called "conceptual inquiries" (although there is a lot more to be said on this). Science deals with empirical results not conceptual inquiries (this used to be called the a priori, although that description of it has somewhat fallen out of favour).

For example, last year I went to a talk by Elliot Sober who is a philosopher who works in the Philosophy of Science. It was well attended by philosophers, scientists and interested members of the university community. What he did was show us that the hypothesis of natural selection was not testable unless it assumed common ancestry. Now some people had assumed this but not proved it and some people had regarded it as false. Many of the science people there thought that he must be right, so did many of the philosophers. Sober didn't have to perform an experiment - this was more like a mathematical proof and most people would accept a mathematical proof. At a practical level, then, philosophers can help other thinkers with conceptual matters, using the tools and concepts that are germane to philosophy.

quote: When we begin arguing abstract ideas, that is where I draw the line. Philosophy may have its place but should not exist as its own entity anymore.

Why? Can't we argue about the intelligibility of concepts? This is a matter with practical implications. We aren't talking about strange metaphysical theories here, which are largely the province of the history of philosophy.

quote: Rather, it should lie within fields such as theoretical physics, classical chemistry, and other various social sciences. For being able to come up with believable ideas lends nothing towards its application.

This would be silly. There is good reason to put the historians of philosophy together with the philosophers of science, epistemologists, ethicists and the rest as they have a lot in common. It is not as if they don't have anything in common with the others, but they have more in common with each other. Likewise there are some people in other disciplines who have a lot in common with philosophy (pure mathematicians are a good example) but it is just convenient to put them somewhere else.

quote: Thus, a PhD in such a field should lend way towards applications of a thought, and not just the creation of one.

It does - a friend I spoke to today is doing a thesis on mental representation. This is of interest to all sorts of people - particularly those who study AI and the brain. It is not as if this topic is radically cut off from other disciplines.

What about historians of philosophy like me? You can't put us in the history department because the methods of the history of philosophy and plain old history are rather different. It would be like lumping in Classics with history, which would be a nightmare where I am. Similarly one could make a case for me to be relegated to the Classics department. But I lean more towards the interests of philosophers. Departmental boundaries are for the most part pragmatic and historical. You try telling the people in religious studies that they should be merged with philosophy and vice versa. Most won't like the idea.

quote: Of course I am speaking without any understanding of what is taught at that level of instruction, merely speaking from that which have read and experienced.

Undergraduate courses in philosophy and introductory books are not representative of the work that professional philosophers do. We all teach people about God and Free will in first year, but people that do graduate work often do it in the topics of logic, reductionism, philosophy of language, philosophy of science and other such boring and technical areas. Some of us even work in AI or Cognitive Science or Linguistics. In all these topics there is a dialogue between philosophy and science - science provides experimental results and philosophy attempts to clear up conceptual confusions (which can lead to new and exciting ways of thinking about scientific discoveries).

This is why many scientists turn up at philosophy talks and vice versa.

Here's what I am going to do. I am going to write a thesis on Plato's conception of mental representation. No one has done this before and it might be of use to all sorts of people. Hopefully, it will be of use to historians of philosophy who want to understand Plato's thought, it will be of use to those in the history of ideas, it may also be of use in sparking a revision of our view of Plato (here's hoping). People who want to write about mental representation will find in it an account of what the first person to really think about it thought. An analysis of Plato's account might even provide new ways of thinking about it which might help solve some problems that current work is dealing with. That's a big ask and I'd be overjoyed if it acheived even one of these goals.

	26-02-2003 04:26									#138
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Agathon should do some proper research. What would you do in a 'philosophy PhD'? Sit around in coffee shops drinking absinthe and wearing togas?

No, you search through editions of Greek texts, translate them. Then look at what everyone else has said on the subject. Then you attempt to say what you think. Much like many other disciplines really.

	26-02-2003 05:21									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Frogger None of the philosophers I know were any good at physics or math. They seemed to be good at constructing fraudulent proofs with the aid of faulty logic and convenient axioms. Which isn't surprising, given their forebears.

You mean like Newton?

	26-02-2003 05:41									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Some of us even work in AI or Cognitive Science or Linguistics.

Just what on earth does a philosopher do in AI?

You mention a whole wide spectrum of things, from atomic theory to AI, that philosophers participate in in your view. The problem with that, of course, is philosophers don't know a damn thing about AI other than perhaps what they feel is ethical to do. Which again, is nothing but an annoyance...

In my head I'm picturing a snobby philosopher in a beret continually interrupting psychologists and computer scientists discussing AI, with stupid questions like "but do we want to have an AI on the same level of a human? Hmm. Let's sit around and discuss this for a century before we research any more..."

	26-02-2003 05:53									#141
	Tired of ads?

Asher, can you tell me why democracy is better than dictatorship WITHOUT using philosophy?

	26-02-2003 05:57									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Asher, can you tell me why democracy is better than dictatorship WITHOUT using philosophy?

What the hell kind of question is this?
I can certainly tell you why a democracy is better than a dictatorship without taking a public university's philosophy courses!

Again, I urge all people who feel the urge to peck out replies to me to read the argument.

I'm not slamming philosophy in general, just that it's a totally useless field in post-secondary study, and public institutions shouldn't be spending taxpayer's money in a useless field...

	26-02-2003 06:01									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: I can certainly tell you why a democracy is better than a dictatorship without taking a public university's philosophy courses!

Can you adequately make the claim without relying on arguments that have been made political philosophers and entrenched in society?

The ideas of libertarianism come straight from JS Mill and Locke, conservatism from Burke, communism from Marx.

Without people studying philosophy (and that includes high level philosophy) you don't have those people engaging in new formulations of society (Locke read Hobbes and countered him... Burke read everyone... Marx comes very much from Hegel).

	26-02-2003 06:04									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Imran... I don't get what you don't understand.

I don't care what philosophers did a hundred plus years ago.

Today's philosophers are doing nothing but regurgitate the same **** over and over again...

NO ONE here has adequately demonstrated the use modern day philosophy students at a public university serves.

As to your previous question about democracy: Let's say I invent another magical field of study called Vowelology: the study of vowels. To prove how useful this field is, I'm going to ask you to answer your own question coherently without using vowels...

Further, I'm going to go ahead and claim credit for all papers from now on that use vowels in them.

	26-02-2003 06:08									#145
	Got spare money?

Sidenote: You've got me *this* close to a rant about the misnomer of "political science".

	26-02-2003 06:10									#146
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

And Asher, you did say:

quote: Philosophy is completely useless. Completely. You've not given any real "uses" for it in this thread, just lame attempts to make it sound useful...

So, If I've gotten you wrong, it is because you've exclaimed that Philosophy is useless.

	26-02-2003 06:12									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Oh, give me a break.
I meant university level philosophy, okay?

Of course "philosophy" is useful if we dig down deep enough and determine that without modern philosophical scolars, we wouldn't be able to say why democracy is better than dictatorship!

You're being ridiculous, Imran.

	26-02-2003 06:18									#148
	Got spare money?

quote: I don't care what philosophers did a hundred plus years ago.

Why should I care what scientists did a hundred plus years ago? Why should I give a damn about Newton? Because they matter to present day society, just like philosophers who wrote a hundred years back do.

quote: Let's say I invent another magical field of study called Vowelology: the study of vowels. To prove how useful this field is, I'm going to ask you to answer your own question coherently without using vowels...

The only problem (and the logical fallacy) is that the original question asked you to compare a subjective (metaphysical) idea with a subjective idea using a subjective basis. You are asking to talk about something objective (vowels - physical) using a subjective basis.

Though I'll agree with you, vowels are important .

quote: I meant university level philosophy, okay?

You assume that Locke, Burke, Hegel, Marx did not have a 'university level' philosophy?

Are we to be mired in the same political philosophical muck? Perhaps someone else with this derided 'university level' philosophy will come up with a new political system of ideas which may change things.

	26-02-2003 06:57									#149
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Asher Sidenote: You've got me *this* close to a rant about the misnomer of "political science".

Yeah, its kinda like computer science eh? Any discipline that has to call itself 'science' isnt!

	26-02-2003 07:14									#150
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Asher Just what on earth does a philosopher do in AI?

You just keep coming out with howlers don't you? Have a look in the Literature. Jack Copeland wrote an introductory text to it some years back. I could look for plenty of other books, but I know about his one because I met him at a grad conference he organised some years back. I assume you have heard of the Turing Test and other such things. Philosophers are interested in these.

quote: You mention a whole wide spectrum of things, from atomic theory to AI, that philosophers participate in in your view. The problem with that, of course, is philosophers don't know a damn thing about AI other than perhaps what they feel is ethical to do. Which again, is nothing but an annoyance...

Again, I suggest that you look before you leap. You might try reading some of the work that's been done before coming out with whoppers like this. You seem to imagine a war between computer scientists and philosophers when one does not exist.

quote: In my head I'm picturing a snobby philosopher in a beret continually interrupting psychologists and computer scientists discussing AI, with stupid questions like "but do we want to have an AI on the same level of a human? Hmm. Let's sit around and discuss this for a century before we research any more..."

No - it isn't like that at all. In fact the AI people I know don't do ethics. You seem to have a very weird view of philosophers. I only know one that wears a beret.

How about looking about on the net for a bit before you come out with your next absolute howler. (That must be half a dozen by now).