Destroying Science with Philosophy

[IamRAMBO24]

Religion can't destroy Science. Why? Because they are dumber. Their assumptions don't hold up to truth. Truth is innate; we are born to know it since it is who we are; it is not founded on objectivity or facts; it is simply founded on access. There are smarter people who can see the truth better than those who can't. And those people are called "Philosophers."

These are the reasons why philosophers think those who abide by science are idiots:

1. They believe in facts.

Facts don't exist. For something to be a fact, it has to be true since the beginning of mankind and for infinity. Well if you look at history, truths change all the time: what we believe is true 100 years ago is wrong today. What we believe today to be true will be wrong 100 years from now. The closest we can come to a fact is in math, but even math is being challenged by different truths we are beginning to figure out.

2. They believe in materialism.

What is materialism? It is the belief in what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. Well everything is vibration and energy. If a scientist is to be honest, he would say the table he sees in front of him is nothing more than a bundle of energy. The sound he hears is just a vibration. Too bad he's too arrogant to admit this and proclaims it is indeed real based on what he sees. But a philosopher is at a higher level and admits it is the mind that turns the energy and vibration into reality, so therefore, reality is a product of the mind. Even Science is a product of the mind since the starting point of it's truths is based on a theory. But Scientist can't accept this since they are too stubborn to look beyond this concept.

3. Their methodology at arriving truth.

1. Observe
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Conclusion

That is just a cliff note of the methodolgy but it's pretty stupid nonetheless. Why? Their premise is an observation. That in and of itself is subjective since what a person sees is totally different from what everybody else sees, so basically Science doesn't deal in objectivity and facts like they claim, but rather an intepretation of a person's view of reality. Not to mention, this methodology is created by John Stuart Mill and has been disproven as a methodology that does not yield any known truths (why do you think nothing great ever comes out of the public educational system that religiously practices this method of truth?).

4. Scientists can't come up with their own ideas and usually rip off ideas from philosophy and claim it as their own.

Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack; the list goes on: even psychology, sociology, the liberal arts, etc. are nothing more than a bunch of rip offs of sh*t philosophers have said hundreds of years ago. A scientist can't come up with their own original thought if their life depended on it.

[CeltsGarlic]

Alright, so just lets stop improving. Even tho philosophy is somewhat underrated.

[IamRAMBO24]

Alright, so just lets stop improving. Even tho philosophy is somewhat underrated.

Philosophy believes evolution is through the mind. Darwin conveniently ripped off Hegel and said it is due to survival. If it is due to survival, then why are we killing ourselves? Science is wrong. Hegel is right. The greatest ideas of all time is what drives evolution.

Many people are brainwashed to believe Science is what drives evolution, well let me ask you this, if the best ideas are being studied all came from Philosophy (and not to mention Science copy righted those ideas to drive their theories), then isn't it logical to assume the root of human advancement is from philosophy itself?

This is the reason why philosophy is underrated: those in power don't want people to see the value in it.

[Take Your Lumps]

One way trip back to the caves. All aboard!

[nathanjizzle]

you must have really failed in life to create this psychopathic character that makes you think you are more enlightened than everyone else.

[miller-time]

These are the reasons why philosophers think those who abide by science are idiots:

1. They believe in facts.

Facts don't exist. For something to be a fact, it has to be true since the beginning of mankind and for infinity. Well if you look at history, truths change all the time: what we believe is true 100 years ago is wrong today. What we believe today to be true will be wrong 100 years from now. The closest we can come to a fact is in math, but even math is being challenged by different truths we are beginning to figure out.

Facts are pieces observed phenomena. Some observations are wrong, some become more accurate but they are accepted as true because it is practical.


2. They believe in materialism.

What is materialism? It is the belief in what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. Well everything is vibration and energy. If a scientist is to be honest, he would say the table he sees in front of him is nothing more than a bundle of energy. The sound he hears is just a vibration. Too bad he's too arrogant to admit this and proclaims it is indeed real based on what he sees. But a philosopher is at a higher level and admits it is the mind that turns the energy and vibration into reality, so therefore, reality is a product of the mind. Even Science is a product of the mind since the starting point of it's truths is based on a theory. But Scientist can't accept this since they are too stubborn to look beyond this concept.

Again it is accepted because it is practical to do so. I'm not going to sit and ponder epistemology every time I decide to walk near a cliff edge, it is simply more practical to assume that it is wise to be cautious because the accepted fact of gravity is more that likely going to be in play.


3. Their methodology at arriving truth.

1. Observe
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Conclusion

That is just a cliff note of the methodolgy but it's pretty stupid nonetheless. Why? Their premise is an observation. That in and of itself is subjective since what a person sees is totally different from what everybody else sees, so basically Science doesn't deal in objectivity and facts like they claim, but rather an intepretation of a person's view of reality. Not to mention, this methodology is created by John Stuart Mill and has been disproven as a methodology that does not yield any known truths (why do you think nothing great ever comes out of the public educational system that religiously practices this method of truth?).

Science doesn't arrive at truth, it arrives at what is false or what is not yet been demonstrated to be false.


4. Scientists can't come up with their own ideas and usually rip off ideas from philosophy and claim it as their own.

Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack; the list goes on: even psychology, sociology, the liberal arts, etc. are nothing more than a bunch of rip offs of sh*t philosophers have said hundreds of years ago. A scientist can't come up with their own original thought if their life depended on it.

Are you saying that Kant and Descartes were standing on no one elses shoulders?

[Lebowsky]

I find it rather funny that one of the dumbest posters on the whole board is the one posing as a wannabe philosopher and berating science.

[DCL]

a scientist says A=A and confirms with calculations and measurements.

but a philosopher argues that A cannot equal A because A is only perception of the mind, imagination, or emotion, and A is not reality so it has no measurement and therefore cannot equate to anything, including replication of itself, because A cannot be proven to exist nor not to exist, nor subexist nor pre-exist; therefore A has no congruent value nor equation, which means it cannot equal A.

these methods of explaining things are why scientists are paid a lot of money and philosophers are paid nothing. lol

[ballup]

I find it rather funny than one of the dumbest posters on the whole board is the one posing as a wannabe philosopher and berating science.
Exactly. Guy rips off relativity concepts, ideas that scientists commonly hold, and puts it off as philosophy. Kinda ironic isn't it?

[travelingman]

Because they are dumber.

http://cdn.gifbay.com/2012/10/there_is_no_need_to_be_upset-4390.gif

[riseagainst]

facts and truths are different things.

[LeGOAT]

Putting that philosophy major to use I see. Good job kid....lmao there are so many fallacies in your stupid little argument I don't even know where to begin.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Science is simply tangible philosophy. I dont see what your beef is.

[Swaggin916]

Science is simply tangible philosophy. I dont see what your beef is.

Exactly.

[riseagainst]

how many threads is OP going to make about him destroying a certain belief, but then proceeds to get destroyed by everyone else?

[dr.hee]

I find it rather funny that one of the dumbest posters on the whole board is the one posing as a wannabe philosopher and berating science.

Maybe he's getting paid in fallacies per minute?

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Honestly whats the fukking point of even using a taxonomy and differentiating the disciples of thought into philosophy, science, and religion.

They all share the same damn mission.

Seek truth.

I say f*ck it.

Abolish it all.

Call it... planting seeds and harvesting the Tree of Knowledge.

[fiddy]

Honestly whats the fukking point of even using a taxonomy and differentiating the disciples of thought into philosophy, science, and religion.

They all share the same damn mission.

Seek truth.

I say f*ck it.

Abolish it all.

Call it... planting seeds and harvesting the Tree of Knowledge.
Agreed. OP with very childish agenda.

[bladefd]

Science is essentially a practical extension of Philosophy. Both work in very similar ways - they both derive from logic & are methods to try and explain various aspects of the world. The difference is that while science is more practical in explaining and dealing with reality (more practical - building hubble telescope, LHC, human genome project, all medical advances, atomic bomb, etc), philosophy relies heavily upon thought experiments.

To argue that philosophy or science are more important is idiotic. Both work hand-in-hand, but if we're simply talking about practical advancements for the better/worse of humanity, science overall had SIGNIFICANTLY bigger impact.

[DonDadda59]

Pure Booty Chatter.

[KNOW1EDGE]

I took a philosophy class in college, it was by far the worst class i have ever taken.

[niko]

OP should give us knowledge he is intimate with, like what goes into the chicken pot pie at KFC.

[IamRAMBO24]

a scientist says A=A and confirms with calculations and measurements.

but a philosopher argues that A cannot equal A because A is only perception of the mind, imagination, or emotion, and A is not reality so it has no measurement and therefore cannot equate to anything, including replication of itself, because A cannot be proven to exist nor not to exist, nor subexist nor pre-exist; therefore A has no congruent value nor equation, which means it cannot equal A.

these methods of explaining things are why scientists are paid a lot of money and philosophers are paid nothing. lol

This is why philosophy is better; it deals with the universal while Science only deals with you see.

People who seek truths by the method of Science usually aren't seeking any truth at all. If you are versed in philosophy, you will know about the human mind, politics, art, logic, morality, religion and yes even Science itself since *cough* they created this sh*t.

To say Science is a better world view when it does not provide answers to 99% of world problems is just from a position of ignorance and a lack of appreciation and knowledge of Philosophy itself.

[IamRAMBO24]

Science is essentially a practical extension of Philosophy. Both work in very similar ways - they both derive from logic & are methods to try and explain various aspects of the world. The difference is that while science is more practical in explaining and dealing with reality (more practical - building hubble telescope, LHC, human genome project, all medical advances, atomic bomb, etc), philosophy relies heavily upon thought experiments.

To argue that philosophy or science are more important is idiotic. Both work hand-in-hand, but if we're simply talking about practical advancements for the better/worse of humanity, science overall had SIGNIFICANTLY bigger impact.

You want to talk about impact:

1. Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes created Science.

2. John Stuart Mills created the Science we are studying in schools today (yes there is a difference).

3. Einstein (most influential Scientist today) ripped off what Kant said 300 years ago.

4. Darwin ripped off Hegel's thesis, antithesis, and synthesis theory to formulate his survival of the fittest.

5. Locke and Voltaire's ideas started the enlightenment movement which created America itself, and the ideas of freedom, liberty, and justice for all is from Locke, which the founding fathers ripped off.

6. Nietzche is the father of modern psychology.

7. Schopenhauer is the father of sociology.

8. Adam Smith is the father of economics.

Not to mention, all the great mathematicians such as Euclid, Archimedes, Pythagoras, etc. are directly responsible for most of the math you know today.

The last huge impact Philosophy made was from Karl Marx and the huge revolution in communism, Dewey's creation of the public educational system, and sadly Hitler's influence from Nietzche. After that, Philosophy was controlled by all major industrialized nations because of Hitler; this is the reason why you do not feel it's impact today.

There is a reason why Philosophy is shunned and those in power do not want you to study it. Why do you think they can care less if the majority of the people are versed in such a narrow, unimaginative, fundamental view of reality such as Science and Religion? It is simply easier to control those with such a black and white perspective of things.

It is sad Philosophy has been watered down to a simple ethics bullsh*t class you take as an alternative curriculum in college class.

[ILLsmak]

How about this, science is a mixture of language and numbers. That's basically what it boils down to. You have math and language.

Math is more finite than science because language is greater than numbers. However, philosophy is based almost entirely on language and idea. I am a philosopher... brothar. I think it's great and I am more interested in ideas than reality. However, one must realize that science is an attempt to explain such philosophical ideas to the masses, the same way math has attempted to explain reality by assigning numerical values.

It's not even about our mind creating "reality"; it's more about being able to conceptualize above what you can not yet prove. That's what is holding back science. Theoretical science is like philosophy. Our ability to interpret this information is not as unrefined as our ability to express it. We have made it necessary to measure such things with tools, well, we don't have tools or measurements for "energy." Everyone knows energy, magnetism, etc exists but they don't really have a great idea how it skews reality, just that it does.

That's why I think science is bullshit. For instance, someone says an object always falls at this speed... no, it doesn't. So many variables you can't really tell what will happen at any given moment. I think that's why so many people go ape shit about certain events because it breaks their concept of what reality is. If you threw a ball and it just flew up into the air and never came back down to earth, you'd be like WTF. You might tell someone, but they wouldn't believe you. They'd say, that never could happen. But I bet we all have experienced an event while not that ridiculous, definitely made us question science.

-Smak

[MavsSuperFan]

Religion can't destroy Science. Why? Because they are dumber. Their assumptions don't hold up to truth. Truth is innate; we are born to know it since it is who we are; it is not founded on objectivity or facts; it is simply founded on access. There are smarter people who can see the truth better than those who can't. And those people are called "Philosophers."

These are the reasons why philosophers think those who abide by science are idiots:

1. They believe in facts.

Facts don't exist. For something to be a fact, it has to be true since the beginning of mankind and for infinity. Well if you look at history, truths change all the time: what we believe is true 100 years ago is wrong today. What we believe today to be true will be wrong 100 years from now. The closest we can come to a fact is in math, but even math is being challenged by different truths we are beginning to figure out.

2. They believe in materialism.

What is materialism? It is the belief in what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. Well everything is vibration and energy. If a scientist is to be honest, he would say the table he sees in front of him is nothing more than a bundle of energy. The sound he hears is just a vibration. Too bad he's too arrogant to admit this and proclaims it is indeed real based on what he sees. But a philosopher is at a higher level and admits it is the mind that turns the energy and vibration into reality, so therefore, reality is a product of the mind. Even Science is a product of the mind since the starting point of it's truths is based on a theory. But Scientist can't accept this since they are too stubborn to look beyond this concept.

3. Their methodology at arriving truth.

1. Observe
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Conclusion

That is just a cliff note of the methodolgy but it's pretty stupid nonetheless. Why? Their premise is an observation. That in and of itself is subjective since what a person sees is totally different from what everybody else sees, so basically Science doesn't deal in objectivity and facts like they claim, but rather an intepretation of a person's view of reality. Not to mention, this methodology is created by John Stuart Mill and has been disproven as a methodology that does not yield any known truths (why do you think nothing great ever comes out of the public educational system that religiously practices this method of truth?).

4. Scientists can't come up with their own ideas and usually rip off ideas from philosophy and claim it as their own.

Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack; the list goes on: even psychology, sociology, the liberal arts, etc. are nothing more than a bunch of rip offs of sh*t philosophers have said hundreds of years ago. A scientist can't come up with their own original thought if their life depended on it.


Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack;

Kant talked about the theory of relativity? (how time gets slower as you approach the speed of light).

Kant talked about E=MC2? (that mass and energy are the same thing)

iirc Kant's whole thing was you need to do the right thing for no other reason that it was the right thing or you were immoral. I only took intro philosophy because I need some liberal arts courses and it was an easy A.

Descartes developed calculus?

[Inactive]

Math is more finite than science because language is greater than numbers. What?

However, one must realize that science is an attempt to explain such philosophical ideas to the masses, the same way math has attempted to explain reality by assigning numerical values. Science isn't an attempt to explain anything to anyone.

It's not even about our mind creating "reality"; it's more about being able to conceptualize above what you can not yet prove. That's what is holding back science. Theoretical science is like philosophy. Scientists make predictions which are either confirmed or falsified via experiment. Those predictions are based on conceptual models which they create to make sense of the universe. Through that process they refine their models, making them function more like the actual universe, and increase the accuracy of future predictions. Without the ability to make predictions, and form hypotheses (i.e "conceptualize above what you can not yet prove"), one wouldn't be able to do science.

Our ability to interpret this information is not as unrefined as our ability to express it. We have made it necessary to measure such things with tools, well, we don't have tools or measurements for "energy." Everyone knows energy, magnetism, etc exists but they don't really have a great idea how it skews reality, just that it does.We have many tools for measuring energy!

That's why I think science is bullshit. For instance, someone says an object always falls at this speed... no, it doesn't. You forgot the "in a vacuum" part.

If you threw a ball and it just flew up into the air and never came back down to earth, you'd be like WTF. You might tell someone, but they wouldn't believe you. They'd say, that never could happen.Have you never seen a balloon?

But I bet we all have experienced an event while not that ridiculous, definitely made us question science.
Unless the universe behaved in a random way, I'm not sure why science wouldn't work.

[Dresta]

You want to talk about impact:

1. Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes created Science.

2. John Stuart Mills created the Science we are studying in schools today (yes there is a difference).

3. Einstein (most influential Scientist today) ripped off what Kant said 300 years ago.

4. Darwin ripped off Hegel's thesis, antithesis, and synthesis theory to formulate his survival of the fittest.

5. Locke and Voltaire's ideas started the enlightenment movement which created America itself, and the ideas of freedom, liberty, and justice for all is from Locke, which the founding fathers ripped off.


This is wrong: those ideas far predated Locke. The founders built the country on a far broader foundation than simply Locke. To say 'they stole it all from Locke' is a gross simplification, and an incorrect one at that.

[Hazard]

So by calling scientists stupid you're suggesting that medicine, technology, and any kind of comfort you have in this lifetime is pointless as long as we acknowledge philosophy as being the only truth. Yes philosophy is the thought of how to improve, but science is the action. Its nice to have a little of practicality mixed with spirituality to create a nice easy balance that is necessary for advancement. I respect philosophy, even theology to an extent.

[bladefd]

This is wrong: those ideas far predated Locke. The founders built the country on a far broader foundation than simply Locke. To say 'they stole it all from Locke' is a gross simplification, and an incorrect one at that.

What is also ill-informed is he makes it seem as if the ideas of 'liberty, freedom & justice for all' weren't known of before Locke wrote about them in 17th century.

I guess somebody didn't learn about Greek philosophy long time before Locke and/or ideas of Eastern philosophy. Even Rome flirted with those very ideas here and there, but as we know, Roman Empire ended up being monarchy and even tyranny at times after the initial Roman Republic debacle (screw you, power-hungry bastard Julius Caesar). They also had major class divisions. Until the USA in late 18th century, the ideas of true liberty, freedom & justice for all were not 100% practiced by an entire nation, but they were known of WAAAAAY before Locke (technically, USA didn't truly follow "liberty, freedom & justice for all" until 1960s after civil rights movement).

[DonDadda59]

What is also ill-informed is he makes it seem as if the ideas of 'liberty, freedom & justice for all' weren't known of before Locke wrote about them in 17th century.

I guess somebody didn't learn about Greek philosophy long time before Locke and/or ideas of Eastern philosophy. Even Rome flirted with those very ideas here and there, but as we know, Roman Empire ended up being monarchy and even tyranny at times after the initial Roman Republic debacle (screw you, power-hungry bastard Julius Caesar). They also had major class divisions. Until the USA in late 18th century, the ideas of true liberty, freedom & justice for all were not 100% practiced by an entire nation, but they were known of WAAAAAY before Locke (technically, USA didn't truly follow "liberty, freedom & justice for all" until 1960s after civil rights movement).

Not really fair to blame the collapse of the Roman Republic solely on Caesar. It was a decaying, failed institution long before he came into power. He just followed through on the examples set by Sulla and his mentor Marius (as well as the populare social reform ideals of the Gracchi)... which is exactly what Octavian would do himself once he inherited Caesar's name/estate.

[Dictator]

What was the point of this? :coleman:

[oh the horror]

What was the point of this? :coleman:


That's very philosophical of you.

[miller-time]

To say Science is a better world view when it does not provide answers to 99% of world problems is just from a position of ignorance and a lack of appreciation and knowledge of Philosophy itself.

So why has it been for thousands of years philosophers have been philosophizing there has not been much improvement to most of the problems that faced humanity, but once the scientific method was unleashed so many of those problems went away or at least became manageable?

[greymatter]

OP is clearly raging about how useless his major is. Can't find a job?

Science has its roots in philosophy, but has evolved into something more useful. Philosophy had its uses, but has run its course. There's nothing new or useful that it provides. The retards who have more than a casual interest in it tend to be useless navel gazing types who like to engage in solopsistic mental mastur.bation.

Philosophy didn't create the semiconductor devices that allow to post your idiocy on the intardnets.

[OldSkoolball#52]

He blinded me with... philosophy!

[Dresta]

So why has it been for thousands of years philosophers have been philosophizing there has not been much improvement to most of the problems that faced humanity, but once the scientific method was unleashed so many of those problems went away or at least became manageable?
huh? Not that i agree with most of what the OP is saying, but this is equally inaccurate. Philosophy wasn't allowed in the years preceding the Enlightenment as the Church repressed anything but Christian theology brutally. And the Enlightenment, in its essence, was a philosophical movement (of which science was an aspect).

[miller-time]

huh? Not that i agree with most of what the OP is saying, but this is equally inaccurate. Philosophy wasn't allowed in the years preceding the Enlightenment as the Church repressed anything but Christian theology brutally. And the Enlightenment, in its essence, was a philosophical movement (of which science was an aspect).

So up until the enlightenment philosophy wasn't happening? Socrates didn't exist and neither did Lao Tzu? I'm talking thousands of years, not just the centuries that Christianity was running rampant throughout Europe. But even then I highly doubt the zero philosophy was going on during those years.

[Dresta]

So up until the enlightenment philosophy wasn't happening? Socrates didn't exist and neither did Lao Tzu? I'm talking thousands of years, not just the centuries that Christianity was running rampant throughout Europe. But even then I highly doubt the zero philosophy was going on during those years.
I know very little about Chinese history and philosophy so i can't comment on that, but the Greeks lived about as long as people in Western civilisation did up until the discovery of penicillin (an accidental discovery that had nothing to do with the scientific method). In fact, many of the most important discoveries in science have been just that: accidental. Which is why the most important thing for the progression of scientific discovery is allowing the individual to pursue a path of his own choosing without restraint. To allow the dissemination of information without restriction etc. etc.

This is effectively freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, academic freedom, the freedom to live ones life without restraint etc.

All these ideas developed and became popular throughout the Enlightenment, and they were justified philosophically, not scientifically. See how much the scientific method did for Galileo when he was forced to retract his discoveries lest he be executed.

And i think you'll find that the scientific method existed long before the last few hundred years. It was present in Greece, it was present among the Muslims during the Middle Ages. There is a reason that science was called 'natural philosophy' - because the two go hand in hand. And what typifies science and makes it valuable is not the method, but the mode of thinking, a way of thinking that was developed through philosophy.

Most of what you readily accept as 'science' these days are experiments of little more validity than Plato's theory of forms (and which any competent scientist would recognise as severely flawed), yet they gobbled up by the masses who have bought into the supreme authority of science. The world would function far better if people were capable of exercising independent thought rather than credulously believing every bit of 'scientific evidence' that is thrown their way.

[miller-time]

I know very little about Chinese history and philosophy so i can't comment on that, but the Greeks lived about as long as people in Western civilisation did up until the discovery of penicillin (an accidental discovery that had nothing to do with the scientific method). In fact, many of the most important discoveries in science have been just that: accidental. Which is why the most important thing for the progression of scientific discovery is allowing the individual to pursue a path of his own choosing without restraint. To allow the dissemination of information without restriction etc. etc.

This is effectively freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, academic freedom, the freedom to live ones life without restraint etc.

All these ideas developed and became popular throughout the Enlightenment, and they were justified philosophically, not scientifically. See how much the scientific method did for Galileo when he was forced to retract his discoveries lest he be executed.

And i think you'll find that the scientific method existed long before the last few hundred years. It was present in Greece, it was present among the Muslims during the Middle Ages. There is a reason that science was called 'natural philosophy' - because the two go hand in hand. And what typifies science and makes it valuable is not the method, but the mode of thinking, a way of thinking that was developed through philosophy.

Most of what you readily accept as 'science' these days are experiments of little more validity than Plato's theory of forms (and which any competent scientist would recognise as severely flawed), yet they gobbled up by the masses who have bought into the supreme authority of science. The world would function far better if people were capable of exercising independent thought rather than credulously believing every bit of 'scientific evidence' that is thrown their way.

I'm not arguing against any of that. My original post was responding to the point that philosophy is able to solve 99% of societies problems (and I was being slightly facetious). I'm not saying philosophy is useless, I'm saying that 99% is a ridiculous assumption. Science has solved so many problems that to deny its importance is ludicrous. The very fact we are having this conversation from across the world is a testament to that fact.

As important as the philosophical underpinnings were to the enlightenment they aren't wholly responsible for the quality of life that we (luckily) in the west get to experience. It opened the door, but it didn't do the leg work. Scientists did that.

[IamRAMBO24]

Kant talked about the theory of relativity? (how time gets slower as you approach the speed of light).

Kant talked about E=MC2? (that mass and energy are the same thing)

iirc Kant's whole thing was you need to do the right thing for no other reason that it was the right thing or you were immoral. I only took intro philosophy because I need some liberal arts courses and it was an easy A.

Descartes developed calculus?

Kant lived during the Copernican revolution which believe space and time are absolutes, Kant on the other hand said both must be viewed from the transcendental perspective, it is our mind that imposes our perspective onto the world, and that time and space are not objective, but rather subjective.

Einstein copy righted his works verbatim, hired a mathematician, and formulated his theories from that, but he did not fully accept Kant's ideas and left out the mind part; other Scientists saw what he did, got their own copies of Kant's work, accepted what he truly said, which laid the foundation for Quantum Physics.

All they did were the grunt work of experimentation, but the ideas are the same ideas Kant said 300 years ago.

Sadly, nobody ever credits him for it. It is the same thing as me stealing a book and changing the cover so I can call my own.

[miller-time]

Einstein copy righted his works verbatim, hired a mathematician, and formulated his theories from that, but he did not fully accept Kant's ideas and left out the mind part; other Scientists saw what he did, got their own copies of Kant's work, accepted what he truly said, which laid the foundation for Quantum Physics.

Theories that didn't exist prior to that. Like I said ages ago, are you saying Kant exists in a vacuum? That people that proceeded him didn't have any influence or contributed to his own concepts and theories?

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm not arguing against any of that. My original post was responding to the point that philosophy is able to solve 99% of societies problems (and I was being slightly facetious). I'm not saying philosophy is useless, I'm saying that 99% is a ridiculous assumption. Science has solved so many problems that to deny its importance is ludicrous. The very fact we are having this conversation from across the world is a testament to that fact.

As important as the philosophical underpinnings were to the enlightenment they aren't wholly responsible for the quality of life that we (luckily) in the west get to experience. It opened the door, but it didn't do the leg work. Scientists did that.

The start of Philosophy is this: the only thing I know is that I know nothing, therefore this study does not discriminate issues based on any metaphysical knowledges out there. It accepts all perspectives and only seeks the highest truths. It is the Buddhism of perspective, while Science is its Christian step brother: rigid, constrain, and black and white.

The start of Science is: we already know everything based on our observations and facts, so therefore everything else is superstition if it is not in the realm of Science.

Your Scientific ideology FORMULATES your world perspective, which is a perspective that believes it is right and everybody else is wrong or stupid. Sounds a lot like Religion *coughs*.

If everybody was more philosophical minded, the world would be a lot better place, but too bad they've been brainwashed to believe a shiny new Iphone that looks like the same piece of sh*t before is so damn important to humanity.

What is even more stupid is they don't realize that all the great new inventions aren't even from the same Science (which is nothing more than a watered down version of John Stuart Mill) that they religiously practice.

[IamRAMBO24]

Theories that didn't exist prior to that. Like I said ages ago, are you saying Kant exists in a vacuum? That people that proceeded him didn't have any influence or contributed to his own concepts and theories?

Have you read his ideas on space and time? Taking the ideas, changing up the wording does not automatically make it belong to somebody else.

Today we call that plagiarizing.

[IamRAMBO24]

I know very little about Chinese history and philosophy so i can't comment on that, but the Greeks lived about as long as people in Western civilisation did up until the discovery of penicillin (an accidental discovery that had nothing to do with the scientific method). In fact, many of the most important discoveries in science have been just that: accidental. Which is why the most important thing for the progression of scientific discovery is allowing the individual to pursue a path of his own choosing without restraint. To allow the dissemination of information without restriction etc. etc.

This is effectively freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, academic freedom, the freedom to live ones life without restraint etc.

All these ideas developed and became popular throughout the Enlightenment, and they were justified philosophically, not scientifically. See how much the scientific method did for Galileo when he was forced to retract his discoveries lest he be executed.

And i think you'll find that the scientific method existed long before the last few hundred years. It was present in Greece, it was present among the Muslims during the Middle Ages. There is a reason that science was called 'natural philosophy' - because the two go hand in hand. And what typifies science and makes it valuable is not the method, but the mode of thinking, a way of thinking that was developed through philosophy.

Most of what you readily accept as 'science' these days are experiments of little more validity than Plato's theory of forms (and which any competent scientist would recognise as severely flawed), yet they gobbled up by the masses who have bought into the supreme authority of science. The world would function far better if people were capable of exercising independent thought rather than credulously believing every bit of 'scientific evidence' that is thrown their way.

You have a way with words.

[DonD13]

as a gymnast, I find this thread very confusing

[miller-time]

Have you read his ideas on space and time? Taking the ideas, changing up the wording does not automatically make it belong to somebody else.

Today we call that plagiarizing.

Have you heard of the term "standing on the shoulders of giants"? Kant's influence on Einsteins work is just that, influence. That is how progress happens. No one man can claim that their work is entirely theirs alone. Culture and language also shape the way we view the world, even if a person only learnt the rudimentary rules to mathematics, was exposed to a specific culture and language and then came up with a brand new theory or philosophy, that result would be partially influenced by those basic teachings. And those teachings would have been built by the people that preceded that person. We can see this process when comparing Eastern and Western philosophies. Nothing, no matter how profound or novel was entirely Kant's. And even less of what you do is yours.

[Simple Jack]

IAmRambo went full retard here.

[Ancient Legend]

Life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which there is no difference between those born of real things and those born of dreams.

[IamRAMBO24]

Have you heard of the term "standing on the shoulders of giants"? Kant's influence on Einsteins work is just that, influence. That is how progress happens. No one man can claim that their work is entirely theirs alone. Culture and language also shape the way we view the world, even if a person only learnt the rudimentary rules to mathematics, was exposed to a specific culture and language and then came up with a brand new theory or philosophy, that result would be partially influenced by those basic teachings. And those teachings would have been built by the people that preceded that person. We can see this process when comparing Eastern and Western philosophies. Nothing, no matter how profound or novel was entirely Kant's. And even less of what you do is yours.

I understand that, but the fact Science seems to claim the ends but never gives credit to the means, makes me question its authencity.

If you really want to educate our kids, you would tell them there is more to knowledge than just filmsy inventions such as the Ipad and Iphone. You would teach them ethics, religion, logic, metaphysics, and especially the humanities; this is the reason why I say Philosophy presents a world view while Science presents a generic view that focuses only technology.

Without ethics and humanities, then technology itself is dangerous. It is a very uneducated view to see Science is the be all end all answers to all worldly problems when it provides very little answers to the important issues that face us in the world we live in.

We're turning into brutes because our ethics is only derived from the law and religion, we are depending way too much on the media to tell us how to think because we do not have the logical know how to think on our own, we are too dependent on generalizations so we fall back to stereotypes as our way of reasoning, we have absolutely know concept of the history of politics and allow parties to dictate and deceive how we think, and since we have no ethical background, we have no sense of morals and are willing to engage in warfare at the expense of others.

Even if you are talking about technological advances, it is philosophy that drives it because without Bacon and Aristotle, there would be no Science; without Descartes, there would be no Newton; without Kant, there would be no Einstein and Quantum Physics; without Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes, there would be no foundation of mathematics. Not to mention, some inventors don't consider themselves as Scientists but rather mere inventors creating new sh*t without its aid.

Sorry to say, but this century belongs to Science and they have failed miserably. Using it as an aid to our way of thinking has really brought very little benefit to society because of their lack of answers for humanity. The fact that religion is gaining ground again shows its failure as a world view that brings about human advancement. Philosophy (the fathers of the enlightement movement) spent a few centuries trying to win the war against this superstition, only to have Science come in and f*ck it up all over again.

[IamRAMBO24]

This is wrong: those ideas far predated Locke. The founders built the country on a far broader foundation than simply Locke. To say 'they stole it all from Locke' is a gross simplification, and an incorrect one at that.

The rich land owners hired Locke to provide the groundwork for America, so it's reasonable to say it's creation is based on his philosophical conception.

[Simple Jack]

Science isn't biased. It's not as if those observations automatically make it true; it becomes an accepted truth after being tested numerous times with a conclusion being reached using empirical data. The very nature of science is that it is always open to progression.

That's not to say philosophy isn't important; it is. Knowledge is a huge part of life. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and each has it's own place. Philosophy will never accomplish what science does, and vice versa. Neither one claims to have all the answers, and as mentioned before, that's not even what science is about.

What subjectivity in science are you even talking about? The scientific method, in it's entirety, gets rid of the subjectivity by effectively testing the observation, and for example, what you think may have caused it.

Edit: Just read what you wrote above...who the **** said anything about science being the only means humans need to utilize to solve all of the world's problems?

[IamRAMBO24]

Science isn't biased. It's not as if those observations automatically make it true; it becomes an accepted truth after being tested numerous times with a conclusion being reached using empirical data. The very nature of science is that it is always open to progression.

That's not to say philosophy isn't important; it is. Knowledge is a huge part of life. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and each has it's own place. Philosophy will never accomplish what science does, and vice versa. Neither one claims to have all the answers, and as mentioned before, that's not even what science is about.

What subjectivity in science are you even talking about? The scientific method, in it's entirety, gets rid of the subjectivity by effectively testing the observation, and for example, what you think may have caused it.

Edit: Just read what you wrote above...who the **** said anything about science being the only means humans need to utilize to solve all of the world's problems?

The medthod of Science used in the public schools is actually the method of John Stuart Mill. You start with an observation, from that you induct to formulate a theory, then you experiment and verify.

Well if you start with an observation, then you are starting at a generalization; you are trying to find truth and work your way back to the concrete.

Think about stereotypes: let's say you want to hypothesize based on your observation that all black people eat chicken. You will need a sample size of black people in different parts of the world to see if they really eat chicken and love it. With enough persistence you will probably find a good sample size to indicate it is indeed what they love, and then you will throw in statistics since it is based on a + or - 5 of probability it might be true.

Then throw in the word "fact" and you have just established a generalized personal perspective into a world view that now regards it as truth.

The greatest deception pulled this century is the manipulation of this pseudo Science.

[IamRAMBO24]

Edit: Just read what you wrote above...who the **** said anything about science being the only means humans need to utilize to solve all of the world's problems?

Most people who are Scientific minded use it as a means for their sense of religion and morality (Atheism) and their reasoning for what is true or not (observation and generalization).

[Simple Jack]

The medthod of Science used in the public schools is actually the method of John Stuart Mill. You start with an observation, from that you induct to formulate a theory, then you experiment and verify.

Well if you start with an observation, then you are starting at a generalization; you are trying to find truth and work your way back to the concrete.

Think about stereotypes: let's say you want to hypothesize based on your observation that all black people eat chicken. You will need a sample size of black people in different parts of the world to see if they really eat chicken and love it. With enough persistence you will probably find a good sample size to indicate it is indeed what they love, and then you will throw in statistics since it is based on a + or - 5 of probability it might be true.

Then throw in the word "fact" and you have just established a generalized personal perspective into a world view that now regards it as truth.

The greatest deception pulled this century is the manipulation of this pseudo Science.


Do you not understand science? Your "stereotype" example is absurd. That wouldn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

An observation itself is not a generalization.

[miller-time]

Even if you are talking about technological advances, it is philosophy that drives it because without Bacon and Aristotle, there would be no Science; without Descartes, there would be no Newton; without Kant, there would be no Einstein and Quantum Physics; without Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes, there would be no foundation of mathematics.

The problem with your Descartes example is that you are assuming that all of his mathematics contributions were derived from philosophical work. Descartes was a mathematician as much a philosopher. Newton's work is standing on Descartes', but Descartes' is standing on those who came before him. All you are doing is taking the end result of centuries of work and attributing it to the few that laid the ground work.

[Simple Jack]

Most people who are Scientific minded use it as a means for their sense of religion and morality (Atheism) and their reasoning for what is true or not (observation and generalization).

Using science as a means for their sense of religion and morality would lead to agnosticism. There is no conclusion that can be drawn using science for many of the questions religion tries to answer.

Regardless, reason, NOT the absence of it, is what science is about; which is why many people may feel the way you described. What people choose to do with science is independent of what science sets out to accomplish; or what it is inherently based on.

I'm not sure if you're pro-religion, but logic and reasoning (the very essence of science) is the solution to most, if not all, of the problems in the world.

[Dresta]

I'm not arguing against any of that. My original post was responding to the point that philosophy is able to solve 99% of societies problems (and I was being slightly facetious). I'm not saying philosophy is useless, I'm saying that 99% is a ridiculous assumption. Science has solved so many problems that to deny its importance is ludicrous. The very fact we are having this conversation from across the world is a testament to that fact.

As important as the philosophical underpinnings were to the enlightenment they aren't wholly responsible for the quality of life that we (luckily) in the west get to experience. It opened the door, but it didn't do the leg work. Scientists did that.
Well then we're more or less in agreement. But that wasn't really what you said in the post i criticised. You were arguing that philosophy was unimportant to human progress when compared with science, but without the correct philosophical foundations, science becomes useless, and often a mere tool of manipulation.

I don't deny the importance of science at all, i merely repudiate its dogmatic dominance in contemporary society and culture, where everything is measured by phoney cost/benefit analysis's, and flimsy studies are fed to morons through the media and other avenues. Science has become dogmatic; the true scientist's beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence rather than authority and intuition. The reason for this is largely due to the way are people are educated and how they are taught to accept the findings of science blindly and without thought. The true purpose of education should be to teach people how to think, not what to think; schooling these days largely consists of stuffing children with formal ideas and nothing else, and this is a problem. It is why we are beginning to ignore and shun the principles that were antecedent to the development of science and the progress it brought.


Using science as a means for their sense of religion and morality would lead to agnosticism. There is no conclusion that can be drawn using science for many of the questions religion tries to answer.

Regardless, reason, NOT the absence of it, is what science is about; which is why many people may feel the way you described. What people choose to do with science is independent of what science sets out to accomplish; or what it is inherently based on.

I'm not sure if you're pro-religion, but logic and reasoning (the very essence of science) is the solution to most, if not all, of the problems in the world.
Rubbish. Logic and reasoning are utterly useless on their own, especially to the person who has not properly investigated past human experience. Two different people can use 'logic and reasoning' and come to two completely different conclusions. Logic as a discipline is fundamentally untenable because, as Hume showed, inductive reasoning cannot be logically justified, and without this first principle, it becomes impossible to deduce anything with any certainty. Thus the only way things can progress and develop is through trial and error and building upon past experiences. This is why the freedom of the individual is the most salient principle in allowing for the growth and development of civilisation, science and human progress: it allows for a maximum of things to be tried, by the most people who view things differently, and therefore for the most to be learnt about what works and what doesn't.

Thus by blindly declaring the divine wisdom of abstract concepts such as 'reason and logic' is almost to make IamRambo's point for him. Everything is reliant on first principles that must be induced, and if these happen to be wrong, then it is likely that everything that follows is also wrong.

[miller-time]

I don't deny the importance of science at all, i merely repudiate its dogmatic dominance in contemporary society and culture, where everything is measured by phoney cost/benefit analysis's, and flimsy studies are fed to morons through the media and other avenues. Science has become dogmatic; the true scientist's beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are best on evidence rather than authority and intuition. The reason for this is largely due to the way are people are educated and how they are taught to accept the findings of science blindly and without thought. The true purpose of education should be to teach people how to think, not what to think; schooling these days largely consists of stuffing children with formal ideas and nothing else, and this is a problem. It is why we are beginning to ignore and shun the principles that were antecedent to the development of science and the progress it brought.

True, but that isn't an problem from science it is a problem with our attitude towards science. Science isn't dogmatic by nature since the entire process relies on disproving things. It is outside social forces acting on science that creates the problems we have today.

[Simple Jack]

Rubbish. Logic and reasoning are utterly useless on their own, especially to the person who has not properly investigated past human experience. Two different people can use 'logic and reasoning' and come to two completely different conclusions. Logic as a discipline is fundamentally untenable because, as Hume showed, inductive reasoning cannot be logically justified, and without this first principle, it becomes impossible to deduce anything with any certainty. Thus the only way things can progress and develop is through trial and error and building upon past experiences. This is why the freedom of the individual is the most salient principle in allowing for the growth and development of civilisation, science and human progress: it allows for a maximum of things to be tried, by the most people who view things differently, and therefore for the most to be learnt about what works and what doesn't.

Thus by blindly declaring the divine wisdom of abstract concepts such as 'reason and logic' is almost to make IamRambo's point for him. Everything is reliant on first principles that must be induced, and if these happen to be wrong, then it is likely that everything that follows is also wrong.

Should have clarified further. I agree with what you are saying. I didn't mean the fundamental ideas of logic and reasoning; I meant the use of reason; as in, what religious people choose not to use when blindly believing.

[IamRAMBO24]

True, but that isn't an problem from science it is a problem with our attitude towards science. Science isn't dogmatic by nature since the entire process relies on disproving things. It is outside social forces acting on science that creates the problems we have today.

Dogmatisim: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant.

Unwarranted: the blatant use of the word "fact" when they know that even Science itself is subject to change over time. These authoritative terms are use to alleviate creative thinking. When you tell someone something is a fact or that it is the word of God, you are basically telling them they should stfu and believe what they are told.

Arrogant: Science won't accept any other truths not within it's realm.

[IamRAMBO24]

Do you not understand science? Your "stereotype" example is absurd. That wouldn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

An observation itself is not a generalization.

An observation is a generalization, hence why Science uses induction and deduction to get to the concrete (the best ideas).

Philosophy on the other hand starts from the concrete and works its way towards a higher truth. This is the reason why both Einstein and Newton needed a philosophical background to drive their experimentation and observation.

Therefore, evolution is not because of the environment (Science), but rather from Philosophy which relies on the best ideas to further its advancement.

[travelingman]

An observation is a generalization, hence why Science uses induction and deduction to get to the concrete (the best ideas).

Philosophy on the other hand starts from the concrete and works its way towards a higher truth. This is the reason why both Einstein and Newton needed a philosophical background to drive their experimentation and observation.

Therefore, evolution is not because of the environment (Science), but rather from Philosophy which relies on the best ideas to further its advancement.

Quoted because I really don't want you to edit any of this message. So full of :facepalm and :oldlol: and :eek:

[miller-time]

Unwarranted: the blatant use of the word "fact" when they know that even Science itself is subject to change over time. These authoritative terms are use to alleviate creative thinking. When you tell someone something is a fact or that it is the word of God, you are basically telling them they should stfu and believe what they are told.

A fact is a piece of data. It is an observation. I observe that when I drop a pen it falls towards the earth. That is a fact. Is it possible that the pen could remain stationary or even move away from the earth? Maybe. But that hasn't been observed so like I said before practically speaking we accept that objects move towards each other under certain conditions. If every piece of data was subject to an epistemological debate then nothing would ever get done. We take observations as read because it is practical. Science does change its facts (or the parameters of facts) when new data comes in, that is a good thing. Until there is new data we use what we have. But science can hypothesize about facts we haven't observed, but we don't call them facts until we know that they exist. It is warranted because the denotation of fact is based on repeatable observation.


Arrogant: Science won't accept any other truths not within it's realm.

What is a truth that science doesn't accept?

[Simple Jack]

An observation is a generalization, hence why Science uses induction and deduction to get to the concrete (the best ideas).

Philosophy on the other hand starts from the concrete and works its way towards a higher truth. This is the reason why both Einstein and Newton needed a philosophical background to drive their experimentation and observation.

Therefore, evolution is not because of the environment (Science), but rather from Philosophy which relies on the best ideas to further its advancement.

An observation alone is NOT a generalization....why can't you comprehend this?

[IamRAMBO24]

An observation alone is NOT a generalization....why can't you comprehend this?

The starting point of an observation is working from the whole and inducting to the concrete. This is the Scientific method of John Stuart Mill (not Newton's like many of you are misled).

This is different from Newton's because Newton started from the concrete (propositions and mathematics) and used his observations and experimentation AFTERWARDS, and not as its starting point.

[IamRAMBO24]

Quoted because I really don't want you to edit any of this message. So full of :facepalm and :oldlol: and :eek:

Have you read John Stuart Mill? Hell you probably haven't even heard of him until this thread.

Education is so full of sh*t it can't even tell you who actually created the methodology and how he came about it that it teaches in its textbooks.

The reason why it does this is because if you guys don't understand the methodology and how it arrives at truth, you will automatically assume it's the same method Newton, Einstein, or any other respectable Scientist used to arrive at their truths.

This is the reason why nothing great ever comes out of the educational system, they can't even teach you the proper kind of Science you should be learning.

[IamRAMBO24]

A fact is a piece of data. It is an observation. I observe that when I drop a pen it falls towards the earth. That is a fact. Is it possible that the pen could remain stationary or even move away from the earth? Maybe. But that hasn't been observed so like I said before practically speaking we accept that objects move towards each other under certain conditions. If every piece of data was subject to an epistemological debate then nothing would ever get done. We take observations as read because it is practical. Science does change its facts (or the parameters of facts) when new data comes in, that is a good thing. Until there is new data we use what we have. But science can hypothesize about facts we haven't observed, but we don't call them facts until we know that they exist. It is warranted because the denotation of fact is based on repeatable observation.

The definition of a fact is a certainty, something that will exist, unchangeable, from the start of time until the end of time. Even the laws of gravity itself is subject to change the more we know about the universe, so the idea that something can actually be a fact is a misguided conception of reality. There are only temporary truths.

[miller-time]

The definition of a fact is a certainty, something that will exist, unchangeable, from the start of time until the end of time. Even the laws of gravity itself is subject to change the more we know about the universe, so the idea that something can actually be a fact is a misguided conception of reality. There are only temporary truths.


You keep missing the main point, practicality. We know facts (and by extension theories) can change or even proven to be wrong, but we don't factor in all possibilities because it is not practical to do so.

To get to the moon scientists and engineers worked with a set of facts and theories, were these facts and theories 100% accurate and true? No. Did the scientists know they were not 100% accurate and true? Yes. Did we get to the moon? Yes. We use what we have because it is the best we can do for now. And it is a good thing that facts change (and it is scientists that are demonstrating these changes in the first place) because it brings us closer to the truth*. If we held onto the same ideas and never updated them scientists would still believe the Earth is the center of the solar system.

*Ultimately we accept in science that we never reach truth but rather accept something hasn't been proven false yet. No matter how much evidence piles up for something like relativity it only takes one piece of evidence against the theory to make us update it or even smash it to pieces.