Stephen Hawkins is a Kantian

[IamRAMBO24]

Yup knew it. Just read his Brief History Of Time. So not only did Einstein plagiarized Kant's thinking, but Hawkins did as well.

Kant said:

1. If the universe had no beginning, there would be an infinite time of events.

2. And if it had a beginning, there would still be an infinite time before it.

Pretty much, Hawkin's entire book revolved around that one premise (which he admitted); sure he added more science, but the thinking was nothing new and a copy right of Kant's critique of pure reason.

Skip the bullsh*t and just study Kant; these scientists are nothing more than parrots saying the same sh*t he said 200 years ago. Boring.

Philosophy > Science

[dr.hee]

Yup knew it. Just read his Brief History Of Time. So not only did Einstein plagiarized Kant's thinking, but Hawkins did as well.

Kant said:

1. If the universe had no beginning, there would be an infinite time of events.

2. And if it had a beginning, there would still be an infinite time before it.

Pretty much, Hawkin's entire book revolved around that one premise (which he admitted); sure he added more science, but the thinking was nothing new and a copy right of Kant's critique of pure reason.

Skip the bullsh*t and just study Kant; these scientists are nothing more than parrots saying the same sh*t he said 200 years ago. Boring.

Philosophy > Science


Who the hell is Stephen Hawkins? You've mentioned him three times, is he famous or something? Am I right to assume you never actually read the book by the dude in a wheelchair with a similar, but not quite the same name?

[DonD13]

cool!

and since you're a Kantian too, that means you're kind of very smart ad-hoc like :bowdown:

[Dresta]

The economics of Mises was founded on Kantian principles. You a Misean Rambo?

Kant's work is dependant on Hume's as well, as was Darwin. Hume > all.

[niko]

Yup knew it. Just read his Brief History Of Time. So not only did Einstein plagiarized Kant's thinking, but Hawkins did as well.

Kant said:

1. If the universe had no beginning, there would be an infinite time of events.

2. And if it had a beginning, there would still be an infinite time before it.

Pretty much, Hawkin's entire book revolved around that one premise (which he admitted); sure he added more science, but the thinking was nothing new and a copy right of Kant's critique of pure reason.

Skip the bullsh*t and just study Kant; these scientists are nothing more than parrots saying the same sh*t he said 200 years ago. Boring.

Philosophy > Science

You read the book so carefully that you apparently don't know his name.

[dr.hee]

You read the book so carefully that you apparently don't know his name.

As I said before, Rambo is way past his prime. Maybe he's decent at flipping burgers, but that's it.

[Raymone]

http://i.imgur.com/fx25xvh.jpg

[oarabbus]

Yup knew it. Just read his Brief History Of Time. So not only did Einstein plagiarized Kant's thinking, but Hawkins did as well.

Kant said:

1. If the universe had no beginning, there would be an infinite time of events.

2. And if it had a beginning, there would still be an infinite time before it.

Pretty much, Hawkin's entire book revolved around that one premise (which he admitted); sure he added more science, but the thinking was nothing new and a copy right of Kant's critique of pure reason.

Skip the bullsh*t and just study Kant; these scientists are nothing more than parrots saying the same sh*t he said 200 years ago. Boring.

Philosophy > Science



The economics of Mises was founded on Kantian principles. You a Misean Rambo?

Kant's work is dependant on Hume's as well, as was Darwin. Hume > all.

:oldlol:

Acting like Kant and Hume's ideas weren't around for at least a millenia beforehand :oldlol:

And who the F is "Hawkins" :coleman:

[oarabbus]

Also, OP is clearly ignorant and has little to no understanding of astrophysics. Not that everyone should understand or be interested in astrophysics, but if you make this kind of topic... :lol

Hawking expressly wrote A Brief History of Time for the layperson, and decided to not include any physics or math except for an early mention of E=mc^2. Look at his actual body of work (easily found online)

Hawking has made massive contributions to astro/physics. He led the way for modern physicists towards finding a GUT and attempting to reconcile the theory of general relativity with quantum mechanics. Even "side" contributions like the postulation (and discovery) of Hawking radiation has been absolutely influential.

And yeah, "Philosophy > Science" may be true in terms of easiness. Philosophy is to science as armchair QBs are to the guys actually playing the game. I want to be clear: No disresepct to Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer (and all the Eastern philosophers who get consistently ignored in favor of European ones) and all the other guys who paved the way for people like Newton, Einstein, Schroedinger and Hawking to exist. They were tremendously influential and I do not dispute those philosophers' wit or contributions to society.


At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said that "philosophy is dead." He believes that philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".

[DonDadda59]

And who the F is "Hawkins" :coleman:

Per Wikipedia:


Stephen Mark Hawkins OAM (born 14 January 1971) is an Australian rower. He won a gold medal at the 1992 Summer Olympics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawkins

Kant for the Gold :applause:

[oarabbus]

Per Wikipedia:


Stephen Mark Hawkins OAM (born 14 January 1971) is an Australian rower. He won a gold medal at the 1992 Summer Olympics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawkins

Kant for the Gold :applause:

:lol

Stephen Hawkins :bowdown:

[Raymone]

Rambo knows plenty about Manual Kant and Steve Hawkins and Alban Einsteinberg. He read their wikipedias.

[dr.hee]

Rambo knows plenty about Manual Kant and Steve Hawkins and Alban Einsteinberg. He read their wikipedias.

There's a German punk band going by that name :lol

http://manualkant.de/site/

Maybe Rambo was talking about music the whole time?

[gts]

Rambo knows plenty about Manual Kant and Steve Hawkins and Alban Einsteinberg. He read their wikipedias.

AKA Foolosophy for Dummies

[Lebowsky]

I don't about Kantian, but I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawkins is a reptilian.

[dr.hee]

I don't about Kantian, but I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawkins is a reptilian.

Looks more like an UFO to me...

[CeltsGarlic]

Philosophy > Science

Oh, Rambo, you so edgy :lol

[CeltsGarlic]

AKA Foolosophy for Dummies

Foolosophy :lol
Im stealing this

[Lebowsky]

Looks more like an UFO to me...
You can laugh all you want, but NASA released a video a few years ago in which a 2-3 mile, Stephen Hawkins-shaped, four seasons pizza could be seen moving at asteroid speed, while emitting gamma rays at 0.5 rate. They tried to cover it up by saying it was a dust particle, but I know for a fact there aren't 2 pizzas in nature with the same artichoke symmetry down to the number pi. If that's not proof enough for you, then I pity you, sir.

[DonDadda59]

You can laugh all you want, but NASA released a video a few years ago in which a 2-3 mile, Stephen Hawkins-shaped, four seasons pizza could be seen moving at asteroid speed, while emitting gamma rays at 0.5 rate. They tried to cover it up by saying it was a dust particle, but I know for a fact there aren't 2 pizzas in nature with the same artichoke symmetry. If that's not proof enough for you, then I pity you, sir.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/45943878.jpg

[KingBeasley08]

Gotta love these people trying to talk smack to OP. Dude could kill you in video games :oldlol:

[dr.hee]

You can laugh all you want, but NASA released a video a few years ago in which a 2-3 mile, Stephen Hawkins-shaped, four seasons pizza could be seen moving at asteroid speed, while emitting gamma rays at 0.5 rate. They tried to cover it up by saying it was a dust particle, but I know for a fact there aren't 2 pizzas in nature with the same artichoke symmetry down to the number pi. If that's not proof enough for you, then I pity you, sir.

Hold on now. Here's a top secret NASA picture showing what they really saw during the tether incident. Does this look fake to you? You only believe what they are brainwashing you to believe. You are only conditioned to doubt the truth! If you can't refute my argument, get the hell out of this thread!

How do you explain all the anamolies in this pictire? This is not suspicious to you? If you were part of that mission, that wouldn't of been a huge deal to you?

http://s14.directupload.net/images/140212/wh8ugvrn.png

[IamRAMBO24]

This thread succeeded way better than expected.

I was just trying to point out you science nerds should know who your real daddy is.

[Raymone]

Hold on now. Here's a top secret NASA picture showing what they really saw during the tether incident. Does this look fake to you? You only believe what they are brainwashing you to believe. You are only conditioned to doubt the truth! If you can't refute my argument, get the hell out of this thread!

How do you explain all the anamolies in this pictire? This is not suspicis to you. If you were part of that mission, that wouldn't of been a huge deal to you?

http://s14.directupload.net/images/140212/wh8ugvrn.png

It's scientifical fact that the tether in that photo is over 9000 miles long, which precludes those objects from being dust particles.

[dr.hee]

It's scientifical fact that the tether in that photo is over 9000 miles long, which precludes those objects from being dust particles.

:applause:

[dr.hee]

I was just trying to point out you science nerds should know who your real daddy is.

Olympic gold medalist Stephen Hawkins?

http://corporate.olympics.com.au/images/dmImage/StandardImage/Stephen_Hawkins_left_310.jpg

[niko]

This thread succeeded way better than expected.

I was just trying to point out you science nerds should know who your real daddy is.
By not knowing how to spell the name of the person you researched so thoroughly you debunked him?

[IamRAMBO24]

The economics of Mises was founded on Kantian principles. You a Misean Rambo?

Kant's work is dependant on Hume's as well, as was Darwin. Hume > all.

Kant synthesized Hume and Berkeley and created something new; both Einstein and Hawking plagiarized his ideas and added science to it; don't get me wrong, they've made some advances in the sciences, but the thinking behind their time and space is an exact replica of his ideas.

Philosophy is so hated, but yet these nerds don't know they owe a lot to it.

[IamRAMBO24]

By not knowing how to spell the name of the person you researched so thoroughly you debunked him?

Wow a typo .. whoopti f*ckin doo.

[dr.hee]

Aliens!

http://art.ngfiles.com/images/95/debora1_dick-in-space.jpg

[oarabbus]

Kant synthesized Hume and Berkeley and created something new; both Einstein and Hawking plagiarized his ideas and added science to it; don't get me wrong, they've made some advances in the sciences, but the thinking behind their time and space is an exact replica of his ideas.

Philosophy is so hated, but yet these nerds don't know they owe a lot to it.


Kant's ideas have been around for hundreds (or even 1000+) years before he was alive. Try looking at some ancient Greek texts, or Hindu or Chinese ones. The idea that Hume created new ideas that hadn't been thought of before is laughable. Stop sucking the d1ck of mainstream European philosophy.

You can make fun of these "nerds" all you want but they're the reason that you're even able to create such a dumb topic on ISH and that you have lights in your home, hot water in your shower, unspoiled food in your fridge, basketball on your TV, and a cell phone in your pocket.

Tell me again what daily amenities philosophers invented/delivered? :roll:



Gotta love these people trying to talk smack to OP. Dude could kill you in video games :oldlol:


:oldlol: what? What are you talking about bro.

And even if this is true, which philosophers do we have to thank for creating video games? Or was that the nerds? :lol

[niko]

Wow a typo .. whoopti f*ckin doo.
No a typo is one time. You wrote his name several times with the wrong spelling. The person you are researching so thoroughly that you say you debunked him, you don't even know his name. Basically you tried to sound smart, and failed terribly. But very funny, which i give props.:cheers:

[oarabbus]

No a typo is one time. You wrote his name several times with the wrong spelling. The person you are researching so thoroughly that you say you debunked him, you don't even know his name. Basically you tried to sound smart, and failed terribly. But very funny, which i give props.:cheers:


:roll:

OP with the extremely rare and impressive Self-Ether

Then getting ethered by Niko even further. Bad day for OP.

[KingBeasley08]

:oldlol: what? What are you talking about bro.

And even if this is true, which philosophers do we have to thank for creating video games? Or was that the nerds? :lol
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325501

[oarabbus]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325501
My b, it makes sense now
:lol :cheers:

[Horde of Temujin]

http://www.economist.com/node/2122034

This article examines how scientists proved that Plato, through human reasoning, may have correctly predicted the shape of the universe

[Dresta]

The idea that Hume created new ideas that hadn't been thought of before is laughable.

Tell me again what daily amenities philosophers invented/delivered? :roll:


You evidently know **** all about Hume, so why are you making claims about him with such certainty?

Hume made multiple original contributions to various branches of philosophy and economics.

Hume pursued empiricism to its logical conclusion when nobody else had. Hume produced a theory of the spontaneous growth of human institutions and morality (yes i know the taoists talked vaguely of spontaneous order and letting things alone, but they certainly produced no comprehensive theory like Hume did). Hume was the first person to introduce the fundamental economic problem of scarcity. He is widely credited with providing a foundation for cognitive science. These are just off the top of my head, if i dug deeper i would surely come up with more.

Obviously he was influenced by other people, because ideas do not exist in a bubble, they build upon one another, but he was and is extremely important. Your 'what daily amenities did philosophers invent' is vacuous to say the least. Hume's epistemology, combined with his political and economic philosophy were seminal in creating the conditions that allowed the industrial revolution, and that produced unprecedented progress and human development in the 19th century (and highly influential on the American constitution also). So to your vacuous question 'what amenities did he produce' i would answer that his work was seminal to the production of a very high percentage of them.

Considering his ideas are now being disregarded in favour of rational constructivism, ridiculing Hume is really the zenith naivety. People have forgotten the philosophical foundations that produced the conditions that allowed human progress, and this is a rather large problem that is pushing western society towards the precipice. The growing faith in scientism is not helping at all. And i certainly don't disregard the value of science or live in ignorance of it: i have been surrounded by science and scientists for a large part of my life and certainly know enough to realise that people swallow anything defined as 'science' in big large gulps regardless of whether there is ambiguity or not (and then they think this makes them smart).

[oarabbus]

And clearly you didn't read my post. I said I was not trying to minimize the work or influence Hume or the other philosophers mentioned. I would think you can find many of Hume's ideas or at least the core beliefs in more ancient texts like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations or the Bhagvad Gita, with later texts probably being more directly similar. Moreso, Descartes, Hobbes, (guys who you seem to be selling pretty short to prop up Hume, for what purpose I do not know) Locke, Bacon, either influenced Hume, or were his contemporaries, or touched upon the same topics he did, or who's work resulted in Hume writing his own influential counterpoints.


The "daily amenities" comment was not directed at you or regarding Hume, I don't know why you interpreted it that way; I was responding to OP and his derisive comments about "nerds" there not you. Also you can credit the industrial revolution to him if you wish but then why not credit Gutenberg (yes, not a philosopher) for allowing the conditions which allowed Hume to do what he did? Or go back even further? Again, just to be sure it isn't misinterpreted, nothing I said previously was meant an attack on Hume, his influence, or ANY 17th/18th century philosophers. I do have immense respect for these minds whether or not it came across in my posts before. Even if I believe Newton and Euler have surpassed any of the names mentioned and reached the ultimate level of influence, it doesn't mean you have to as well..


People have forgotten the philosophical foundations that produced the conditions that allowed human progress, and this is a rather large problem that is pushing western society towards the precipice. The growing faith in scientism is not helping at all.

It doesn't change the fact that people like Tesla, Fermi, Oppenheimer, along with more recently, people like Alan Turing (probably the most under appreciated individual today) and Tim Berners-Lee have shaped the world as it is now. Regardless, you won't catch me gulping down whatever BS pseudoscience finds its way onto the front page of popular websites or hits from cursory google searches.

Again, I am not trying to diminish the work or influence of philosophers over the course of human history; they clearly were crucial to the development of culture and modern thought. But in the last century Jonas Salk and Frederick Sanger have done more for humanity than any recent philosophers and I don't particularly follow your reasoning regarding what's quoted.

[Jailblazers7]

Wtf is wrong with this dude? The fact that they "added some science" to Kant's ideas is a huge ****ing deal. Kant is obviously a hugely important historical figure but with a scientific application of his ideas they become infinitely less powerful. Kant inspired Einstein and Hawkins which is awesome and important but those scientists added immense value to his ideas.

[Dresta]

And clearly you didn't read my post. I said I was not trying to minimize the work or influence Hume or the other philosophers mentioned. I would think you can find many of Hume's ideas or at least the core beliefs in more ancient texts like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations or the Bhagvad Gita, with later texts probably being more directly similar. Moreso, Descartes, Hobbes, (guys who you seem to be selling pretty short to prop up Hume, for what purpose I do not know) Locke, Bacon, either influenced Hume, or were his contemporaries, or touched upon the same topics he did, or who's work resulted in Hume writing his own influential counterpoints.

The "daily amenities" comment was not directed at you or regarding Hume, I don't know why you interpreted it that way; I was responding to OP and his derisive comments about "nerds" there not you. Also you can credit the industrial revolution to him if you wish but then why not credit Gutenberg (yes, not a philosopher) for allowing the conditions which allowed Hume to do what he did? Or go back even further? Again, just to be sure it isn't misinterpreted, nothing I said previously was meant an attack on Hume, his influence, or ANY 17th/18th century philosophers. I do have immense respect for these minds whether or not it came across in my posts before. Even if I believe Newton and Euler have surpassed any of the names mentioned and reached the ultimate level of influence, it doesn't mean you have to as well..

It doesn't change the fact that people like Tesla, Fermi, Oppenheimer, along with more recently, people like Alan Turing (probably the most under appreciated individual today) and Tim Berners-Lee have shaped the world as it is now. Regardless, you won't catch me gulping down whatever BS pseudoscience finds its way onto the front page of popular websites or hits from cursory google searches.

Again, I am not trying to diminish the work or influence of philosophers over the course of human history; they clearly were crucial to the development of culture and modern thought. But in the last century Jonas Salk and Frederick Sanger have done more for humanity than any recent philosophers and I don't particularly follow your reasoning regarding what's quoted.
I could only take it to be partially aimed at me because OP didn't mention Hume, and you laughed at my recognition of Hume in the first page of this thread. I do regard him as one of the greatest intellectual figures in human history, and also one of those with the widest positive influence on humanity over the long term. It is a shame his ideas were supplanted by Rousseau's by many because then we wouldn't have had Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin etc.

Hume's ideas were so important to so many areas of human knowledge and understanding, he really was remarkable, and was the ultimate sceptic. I haven't read the Meditations, but i was under the impression it was a book on how you should live your live, how a leader should govern etc? but Hume would've rejected the idea of any such power as Marcus Aurelius held being granted to any human individual or institution (and as we saw, Marcus paved the way for Commodus). Hume was almost the antithesis of Descartes in many respects, Hobbes was largely rationalist and Locke certainly influenced Hume a fair amount (so did Berkeley), but he fundamentally rejected their conclusions and took their ideas further and to their logical conclusion (Locke was also a bit of a rationalist). No one before him had rejected causation and thus deemed induction impossible. And Bacon was a tool with an incredibly over-inflated reputation (he was actually the progenitor of scientism and its use as a tool of propaganda for influencing the masses), the man himself was no great scientist, and had no or little respect for the great scientists of his time (Galileo, Harvey, Gilbert). His view of law was pretty much opposite to Hume. Bacon was just a dick tbh.

I don't disregard the contributions of those people at all, all i was saying is that Hume is one of the most important intellectual figures in human history, and if his advice were better heeded, the world would be a far better place.

edit: i should also point out - even though Hume made original contributions anyway - that something is not original does not mean it cannot have great worth or merit as a piece of philosophy or science. The scope, unity, cohesiveness and consistancy of a work is also very important. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, for example, contained not a single original contribution to economic thought, but taken as a whole, it was still a sublime piece of work and was massively important (because he took the insight of others and combined it into a unified theory).

[IamRAMBO24]

Dresta owning noobs once again. Keep on fighting bro. You are easily the most intelligent guy in here.

[IamRAMBO24]

Wtf is wrong with this dude? The fact that they "added some science" to Kant's ideas is a huge ****ing deal. Kant is obviously a hugely important historical figure but with a scientific application of his ideas they become infinitely less powerful. Kant inspired Einstein and Hawkins which is awesome and important but those scientists added immense value to his ideas.

Good point, thanks for recognizing how important philosophy is. I just don't like the idea philosophy is so hated amongst these science heads when the field owes so much to it.

Science might have one up on philosophy because of technological advances, but it is the ideas of philosophy that drives it and not the other way around.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://www.economist.com/node/2122034

This article examines how scientists proved that Plato, through human reasoning, may have correctly predicted the shape of the universe

:applause:

I am willing to go as far as to say Aristotle's theory on the heart (how it is the center of the body) is going to be correct in the near future based on new fields of medicine.

These f*ckers were around 2,000 years ago and we are still trying to catch up to them.

This shows you how far advance philosophy is compare to other fields.

[Dresta]

I think in terms of compatibility with modern science, Parmenides's view of the universe appears the most accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

For those who don't know, particularly here: 'In "the way of truth" (a part of the poem), he explains how reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In "the way of opinion," he explains the world of appearances, in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful.'

Pity most of his work was lost really.

[Bandito]

Good point, thanks for recognizing how important philosophy is. I just don't like the idea philosophy is so hated amongst these science heads when the field owes so much to it.

Science might have one up on philosophy because of technological advances, but it is the ideas of philosophy that drives it and not the other way around.
Not a direct answer to this post just the reasoning behind the post but Isnt the point of science to prove stuff anyways? So what he did what take what kant said and put it in 'scientific' terms as a theory because it made pogic to him. Could be proven wrong in the future but as of now thats the only logical explanation.

[IamRAMBO24]

Not a direct answer to this post just the reasoning behind the post but Isnt the point of science to prove stuff anyways? So what he did what take what kant said and put it in 'scientific' terms as a theory because it made pogic to him. Could be proven wrong in the future but as of now thats the only logical explanation.

Science is a slave to philosophy; philosophy produces the ideas, while science does the hard work (experimentation) to prove those ideas. What is the start of science? A theory, and usually those theories are derived from philosophy.

Kant's theory on time and space is really the foundation of both Einstein and Hawking; both have admitted to it; and both are clearly using everything he said to justify their position. Sure they are smart enough to understand him and interpret it in their own words, but the premise is still the same. Their starting points are the same as Kant.

That is a secret many of you nerds are not aware of, so start studying Kant if you want to be the next Einstein or Hawking. :)

I understand that ideas build upon another, but Kant is on a whole new playing field: his ideas are so ingenious it is hard to correlate it with anyone before.

[Dresta]

Not a direct answer to this post just the reasoning behind the post but Isnt the point of science to prove stuff anyways? So what he did what take what kant said and put it in 'scientific' terms as a theory because it made pogic to him. Could be proven wrong in the future but as of now thats the only logical explanation.
Not necessarily: Hume showed that the process of inductive reasoning is not logically possible and thus providing objective proof for any theory becomes impossible. This led - through Popper (who i seriously need to read) - to science working through a process of falsification, a whittling down of theories. Just because something is the current scientific consensus, does not mean it will not be falsified in the future.

Generally, the longer a theory has been the accepted consensus without its being falsified, the more likely its validity. But this does not mean that new information could not arise to render it obsolete.

i.e. there are no eternal truths, or at least we are incapable of proving they exist.

[miller-time]

Science is a slave to philosophy; philosophy produces the ideas, while science does the hard work (experimentation) to prove those ideas. What is the start of science? A theory, and usually those theories are derived from philosophy.

You talk such nonsense. Science is a slave to philosophy? What does that even mean? Science gets funding to build space ships and nuclear reactors and medical experimentation, philosophy gets a few rooms in a humanities building in a university. You think all that money being made from science is going back into the philosophers pockets? If you are right and science is taking its ideas from philosophy then philosophy is getting ****ed in the ass bro.

[IamRAMBO24]

You talk such nonsense. Science is a slave to philosophy? What does that even mean? Science gets funding to build space ships and nuclear reactors and medical experimentation, philosophy gets a few rooms in a humanities building in a university.

Ideas drive revolutions, not experiments and observation. This is the greatest misconception of modern time.

1. Aristotle and Bacon created Science.

2. Descartes laid the foundation for Newton.

3. Kant is laying the foundation for Einstein and Hawking.

That is how evolution in intelligence evolves; science is simply following philosophy all the way.

And yes, there is actually a deliberate attempt to control philosophy in modern times: if philosophy controls revolutions, then it goes to reason those in power would want to discredit it as much as possible through education , which tells you to hate thinking and to only memorize and repeat, hence why you are not giving it the full respect it deserves.

[miller-time]

Ideas drive revolutions, not experiments and observation. This is the greatest misconception of modern time.

Yeah remember the time Alexander Fleming was reading The Big Book of Kant and suddenly realized that penicillin had anti-biotic properties? Oh no wait that was after he observed something in an experiment. He only saved billions of people with that "observation"..

[IamRAMBO24]

Yeah remember the time Alexander Fleming was reading The Big Book of Kant and suddenly realized that penicillin had anti-biotic properties? Oh no wait that was after he observed something in an experiment. He only saved billions of people with that "observation"..

Hey I'm not arguing that science has made technological advances through observation; what I am saying is intellectual revolution owes a lot to philosophy.

Penicillin is small balls to the bigger picture. There would be no Einstein, Hawking, and Quantum Physics without Kant.

[Patrick Chewing]

Not necessarily: Hume showed that the process of inductive reasoning is not logically possible and thus providing objective proof for any theory becomes impossible. This led - through Popper (who i seriously need to read) - to science working through a process of falsification, a whittling down of theories. Just because something is the current scientific consensus, does not mean it will not be falsified in the future.

Generally, the longer a theory has been the accepted consensus without its being falsified, the more likely its validity. But this does not mean that new information could not arise to render it obsolete.

i.e. there are no eternal truths, or at least we are incapable of proving they exist.


Agree. Science or "modern day science" as we know it is so infantile at this point in time and nothing is certain.

[Jello]

Kant plagiarized hume. there would be no einstein, hawking, or quantum physics without hume. Kant's a dirty copy cat

[Jello]

Agree. Science or "modern day science" as we know it is so infantile at this point in time and nothing is certain.
Your intellect is pretty infantile so it's not too far fetched you would think modern day science is infantile.

[IamRAMBO24]

Kant plagiarized hume. there would be no einstein, hawking, or quantum physics without hume. Kant's a dirty copy cat

Not really.

Kant synthesized Hume and Berkeley, which was revolutionary in and of itself, to create something new.

Hawking and Einstein used what he said to carry out their science. Huge difference.

[Jello]

Not really.

Kant synthesized Hume and Berkeley, which was revolutionary in itself, to create something new.

Hawking and Einstein used what he said to carry out their science. Huge difference.
No there is no difference. kunt's a copy cat and plagiarizing thief.

[miller-time]

Hey I'm not arguing that science has made technological advances through observation; what I am saying is intellectual revolution owes a lot to philosophy.[/B]

But you keep divorcing the concepts. Science is an extension of philosophy (stemming from natural philosophy). Of course philosophical concepts are going to weigh in. Because they both related to understanding the universe. Saying quantum physics owes a lot to Kant is like saying gene therapy or cloning owes a lot to Hippocrates. It is a continuational process. Sure they might not exist or might have developed in a different manner without him but they are contributions that developed without his direct presence or contribution.

No one is saying the great philosophers haven't contributed to our collective knowledge but that shouldn't mitigate the contributions from the people that came after them. I mean if you go down that path then why give Kant all the credit and instead give it to the people that came before him, or the ones before them, or the first guy who looked up at the starts in 30,000 BC and thought "why are we here?"

[dr.hee]

No there is no difference. kunt's a copy cat and plagiarizing thief.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/h/pics/hume.jpg

Humad tho?

[Patrick Chewing]

Your intellect is pretty infantile so it's not too far fetched you would think modern day science is infantile.


Do you disagree that science is ever-changing? I suggest you open up a book.


It is common knowledge that it is.

[DonD13]

Kant is a boring ****. you can quote me on this one.

there is nothing you can gain by reading him. his moral is for small-timers and to distinguish between 'dinge an sich' and their appearance is pointless and old.

[Jello]

Kant is a boring ****. you can quote me on this one.

there is nothing you can gain by reading him. his moral is for small-timers and to distinguish between 'dinge an sich' and their appearance is pointless and old.
:applause: Kant's a stupid bich. Change his name to kunt.

[Jello]

Do you disagree that science is ever-changing? I suggest you open up a book.


It is common knowledge that it is.
I don't disagree, but I agree youre dumb as hell.

[IamRAMBO24]

Kant is a boring ****. you can quote me on this one.

there is nothing you can gain by reading him. his moral is for small-timers and to distinguish between 'dinge an sich' and their appearance is pointless and old.

Yea keep on hating philosophy; not only is your greatest science (Quantum Physics) the foundation of Kantian metaphysics, but all theories today are nothing more than a cliff note of his space and time.

If he is so f*ckin' "old," then why are most modern scientific theories today using his space and time as their premises?

Know who your real daddy is and respect your elders homeboy. Thanks.

[Patrick Chewing]

I don't disagree, but I agree youre dumb as hell.


I'm glad we agree. Will you be my friend?

[Jello]

Yea keep on hating philosophy; not only is your greatest science (Quantum Physics) the foundation of Kantian metaphysics, but all theories today are nothing more than a cliff note of his space and time.

If he is so f*ckin' "old," then why are most scientific theories today are nothing more than cliff notes of his space and time?

Know who your real daddy is and respect your elders homeboy. Thanks.
Kant copied hume. :facepalm Why don't you read all of humes works? kantian metaphysics is the foundation of the hume's philosophy. Hume was way ahead of his time. Kunt's just a dirty copy cat. Why don't you go learn philosophy because you obviously don't know kunt was a dumb noob at philosophy...?

[IamRAMBO24]

But you keep divorcing the concepts. Science is an extension of philosophy (stemming from natural philosophy). Of course philosophical concepts are going to weigh in. Because they both related to understanding the universe. Saying quantum physics owes a lot to Kant is like saying gene therapy or cloning owes a lot to Hippocrates. It is a continuational process. Sure they might not exist or might have developed in a different manner without him but they are contributions that developed without his direct presence or contribution.

No one is saying the great philosophers haven't contributed to our collective knowledge but that shouldn't mitigate the contributions from the people that came after them. I mean if you go down that path then why give Kant all the credit and instead give it to the people that came before him, or the ones before them, or the first guy who looked up at the starts in 30,000 BC and thought "why are we here?"

You said it: science is an extension of philosophy.

1. The starting point of evolution is an idea.

2. You use those ideas to experiment and observe a new foundation of reality; keep in mind, for you to gain this new foundation of observation is to have the idea in the first place.

Science does not = philosophy. It is the custodian that cleans up the bathroom after they use it.

[Jello]

Kant copied hume. :facepalm Why don't you read all of humes works? kantian metaphysics is the foundation of the hume's philosophy. Hume was way ahead of his time. Kunt's just a dirty copy cat. Why don't you go learn philosophy because you obviously don't know kunt was a dumb noob at philosophy...?
Why don't you reply rambo? I got the last word therefore i won the debate. Kant is a thief plagiarizer copycat dumb fk at philosphy. You lose the debate rambo.:cheers:

[DonD13]

Yea keep on hating philosophy; not only is your greatest science (Quantum Physics) the foundation of Kantian metaphysics, but all theories today are nothing more than a cliff note of his space and time.

If he is so f*ckin' "old," then why are most modern scientific theories today using his space and time as their premises?

Know who your real daddy is and respect your elders homeboy. Thanks.

I would LOVE to discuss philosophy but I can't talk to people who so obviously didn't do their homework :facepalm

get some reading done man, I can't do everything for you

[Jello]

You said it: science is an extension of philosophy.

1. The starting point of evolution is an idea.

2. You use those ideas to experiment and observe a new foundation of reality; keep in mind, for you to gain this new foundation of observation is to have the idea in the first place.

Science does not = philosophy. It is the custodian that cleans up the bathroom after they use it.
That analogy is so dumb. Did you get it from kunt?

[IamRAMBO24]

Kant copied hume. :facepalm Why don't you read all of humes works? kantian metaphysics is the foundation of the hume's philosophy. Hume was way ahead of his time. Kunt's just a dirty copy cat. Why don't you go learn philosophy because you obviously don't know kunt was a dumb noob at philosophy...?

Why don't you read Hume first before you question me?

So let me ask you a few things:

1. What was his methodolgy?

2. Why did refute Berkeley?

3. What was his conclusion?

Obviously you are smarter than I am, so you should know the answers to these questions. Good luck trying to google and use wiki, it's gonna take a lot more than that to understand Hume.

[Jello]

Why don't you read Hume first before you question me?

So let me ask you a few things:

1. What was his methodolgy?

2. Why did refute Berkeley?

3. What was his conclusion?

Obviously you are smarter than I am, so you should know the answers to these questions. Good luck trying to google and use wiki, it's gonna take a lot more than that to understand Hume.
I already knwo that sht. You read it and figure it out. It'll be revolutionary. Kunts a copycat and it needs to be in college curriculum. Hume>Kunt. End of debate.

[IamRAMBO24]

That analogy is so dumb. Did you get it from kunt?

What is the starting point of Science? A theory.

What is a theory? An idea.

Where are the best ideas coming from? Philosophy.

Science is nothing more than a product of the mind.

[Jello]

What is the starting point of Science? A theory.

What is a theory? An idea.

Where are the best ideas coming from? Philosophy.

Science is nothing more than a product of the mind.
Idc about that sht. Hume philosophy>science. Hume>kunt. Kunt is a dirty copy cat.

[miller-time]

Science does not = philosophy. It is the custodian that cleans up the bathroom after they use it.[/B]

No. Philosophy is the 14 year old kid that comes up with an idea for an iphone app. Science is the programmers, and marketers, and designers that build and get funding for the app. And you are the media giving all of the credit to the kid with the idea.

[Jello]

No. Philosophy is the 14 year old kid that comes up with an idea for an iphone app. Science is the programmers, and marketers, and designers that build and get funding for the app. And you are the media giving all of the credit to the kid with the idea.
No stupid. Hume built the iphone. Hume is the precursor to all technology and science. He is the master of philosophy.

[IamRAMBO24]

No. Philosophy is the 14 year old kid that comes up with an idea for an iphone app. Science is the programmers, and marketers, and designers that build and get funding for the app. And you are the media giving all of the credit to the kid with the idea.

The kid is the genius; he created that idea and hired the workers to invent new sh*t.

[Jello]

Hume>Kunt. End of debate. Rambo you lost. Can you even step to my intellectual capacity to understand hume? I suggest you start reading hume, then you will realize kunt is just a dirty old guy that plagiarized hume. http://www.davidhume.org/
Get reading and get on the hume hypetrain.

[oarabbus]

I could only take it to be partially aimed at me because OP didn't mention Hume, and you laughed at my recognition of Hume in the first page of this thread. I do regard him as one of the greatest intellectual figures in human history, and also one of those with the widest positive influence on humanity over the long term. It is a shame his ideas were supplanted by Rousseau's by many because then we wouldn't have had Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin etc.

Hume's ideas were so important to so many areas of human knowledge and understanding, he really was remarkable, and was the ultimate sceptic. I haven't read the Meditations, but i was under the impression it was a book on how you should live your live, how a leader should govern etc? but Hume would've rejected the idea of any such power as Marcus Aurelius held being granted to any human individual or institution (and as we saw, Marcus paved the way for Commodus). Hume was almost the antithesis of Descartes in many respects, Hobbes was largely rationalist and Locke certainly influenced Hume a fair amount (so did Berkeley), but he fundamentally rejected their conclusions and took their ideas further and to their logical conclusion (Locke was also a bit of a rationalist). No one before him had rejected causation and thus deemed induction impossible. And Bacon was a tool with an incredibly over-inflated reputation (he was actually the progenitor of scientism and its use as a tool of propaganda for influencing the masses), the man himself was no great scientist, and had no or little respect for the great scientists of his time (Galileo, Harvey, Gilbert). His view of law was pretty much opposite to Hume. Bacon was just a dick tbh.

I don't disregard the contributions of those people at all, all i was saying is that Hume is one of the most important intellectual figures in human history, and if his advice were better heeded, the world would be a far better place.

edit: i should also point out - even though Hume made original contributions anyway - that something is not original does not mean it cannot have great worth or merit as a piece of philosophy or science. The scope, unity, cohesiveness and consistancy of a work is also very important. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, for example, contained not a single original contribution to economic thought, but taken as a whole, it was still a sublime piece of work and was massively important (because he took the insight of others and combined it into a unified theory).


:cheers:


Good post man. I see why you thought I was targeting you somewhat with my earlier comments, and I'll apologize for the lol smileys at your initial post, that certainly didn't help my case and was a bit immature. Regarding Meditations, it is indeed a book about how to live your life, about rationality, morals and ethics. He touches upon metaphysics as well, and speaks of the nature of space and time (of course, this is the interpretation of the reader+translator, the book speaks in more vague terms about "the substance of the Whole" etc). I only brought him up due to your earlier post crediting Hume with human institutions/morality, but I see now where you are coming from. I wanted to point out that some roots of Hume's ideas are present in Meditations (including cognitive science, to a degree, but certainly not explicitly), which is what I meant by "Hume's ideas have been around for a very long time" but that was... well, wrong. It seemed to me as if you were portraying Hume as an island who singlehandedly created all of these ideas from nothing but reading the rest of your posts have made it clear what you meant.

I don't mean to have been posturing that I'm an expert on Hume, or his contemporaries; I have read some of their works and am aware of the philosophies of the individuals mentioned, but you clearly know more about the subject than I. I will have to be honest and admit that I have not spent time on Hume's writings compared to some of the other names mentioned.

Anyway, OP made comments ranging from extremely questionable to asinine. I really don't think he has a grasp on what Stephen "Hawkins" has brought to the table or any of these other "nerds" who apparently are worthless and have simply copied philosophical ideas and translated them into mathematics (even though that by itself is quite impressive). I mean, if someone claimed to have read works by "Desmond Hume" and was denouncing them... it's more than just a simple typo when you are trying to discredit someone's achievements. Well I'm getting off topic here, basically OP has said some bizarre things but you made good posts and I enjoyed this discourse. That's quite high praise of Hume you've given, so I'll have to do my due diligence and delve deeper into his works. Is there something in particular you recommend?

[miller-time]

The kid is the genius; he created that idea and hired the workers to invent new sh*t.

Yeah but in this analogy the kid doesn't hire anyone. He just sends his ideas out there and they're are picked up by other people and he misses out on that sweet sweet profit. If he were capable of actually building the technology (or equations) to deliver (or demonstrate) his ideas he might have been better recognized. Instead he gets a cute story on the evening news.

[IamRAMBO24]

Yeah but in this analogy the kid doesn't hire anyone. He just sends his ideas out there and they're are picked up by other people and he misses out on that sweet sweet profit. If he were capable of actually building the technology to deliver (or demonstrate) his ideas he might have been better recognized. Instead he gets a cute story on the evening news.

Without that kid's idea, there would be no profit nor technology.

You don't truly believe Einstein got his hands dirty did you? Even his mathematics were out sourced to other mathematicians.

Oppenheimer worked on the atom bomb; Einstein merely b*tched him around to do it.

[DonD13]

Without that kid's idea, there would be no profit nor technology.

You don't truly believe Einstein got his hands dirty did you? Even his mathematics were out sourced to other mathematicians.

Oppenheimer worked on the atom bomb; Einstein merely b*tched him around to do it.

THIS.

He had no talent but was very marketable.
And Special relativity and General relativity are just side-notes to Kant anyway.

[oarabbus]

Without that kid's idea, there would be no profit nor technology.

You don't truly believe Einstein got his hands dirty did you? Even his mathematics were out sourced to other mathematicians.

Oppenheimer worked on the atom bomb; Einstein merely b*tched him around to do it.

Yes, Einstein is not the end-all be all of scientists or even physicists, but he was quite brilliant. You can't dismiss Oppenheimer, Fermi, Feynman (a true fvcking boss), Bohr, Neumann, Szilard, Heisenberg, etc as worthless compared to philosophers, though, even if they are "nerds".

[IamRAMBO24]

THIS.

He had no talent but was very marketable.
And Special relativity and General relativity are just side-notes to Kant anyway.


I know you were being sarcastic, but his general relativity was based on Kant's ideas. Sure he used the science to prove it, but it was Kant who laid the foundation, which goes back to my original premise that philosophy drives intellectual evolution and not science.

Science is nothing more than the worker.

[oarabbus]

I know you were being sarcastic, but his general relativity was based on Kant's ideas. Sure he used the science to prove it, but it was Kant who laid the foundation, which goes back to my original premise that philosophy drives intellectual evolution and not science.

Science is nothing more than the worker.


Dude, are you being facetious or just ignorant? You act as if Kant explicitly stated the interpretations of general relativity and Einstein simply produced a few equations. Do you not realize that Kant was heavily influenced by many other people, other philosophers and in particular, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, a physicist and mathematician, respectively? Do you realize Einstein was heavily influenced by Lorentz and formed his theories with discourse from contemporaries like Heisenberg and Schroedinger? Not to mention Einstein made massive intellectual leaps.

Why are you trying to downplay science so much and prop up philosophers? Like everything in life, there is an interplay between the two. Yes, philosophy absolutely created the foundations for science as we know it today to emerge. But to attribute general relativity, other than a rough framework, to Kant is just spreading misinformation. Artists, athletes, and musicians have not driven intellectual evolution yet were it not for them, there wouldn't be a life worth living for the philosophers and scientists.

edit: Kant created a framework and influenced relativity. He may have influenced particular aspects of relativity but he sure as hell wasn't the mastermind behind it which involves, among many other things, a model of the relationship between frames of reference with non-constant acceleration (or without constant velocity, I'm not sure which tbh). This is already insanely complex and isn't even the most complex parts of his theory. The jump between special and general relativity was a massive fvcking intellectual leap by Einstein and downplaying this or attributing it to Kant makes you look foolish. And yes, I have studied special relativity before and no, I have not studied general relativity because that **** is difficult as **** and also not very applicable to our nice Newtonian-approximated world.


http://www.academia.edu/248944/The_Kantian_Grounding_of_Einsteins_Worldview_I_The _Early_Influence_of_Kants_System_of_Perspectives

http://www.academia.edu/3307162/The_Kantian_Grounding_of_Einsteins_Worldview_II_Si multaneity_Synthetic_Apriority_and_the_Mystical

Here's a paper analyzing this. Notice that the author titled the paper the "Kantian GROUNDING of Einstein's Worldview" (kind of like what you said...) and a grounding does not mean Kant did all or even most of the work, as stated in the papers (nothing like what you said/implied). Kant's influence touched upon simultinaeity, the nature of time, and other important aspects, but does not encompass the entirety of the theory of relativity. Kant is just one piece of the relativity puzzle when it comes to Einstein. He is not greater than Newon, Maxwell, Lorentz, etc.


While Kant did not
teach
Einstein the theory of relativity,reading Kant brought to Einstein’s attention both the nature of the problemand the proper philosophical tools and procedure he needed to solve it.

Kant gave him the philosophical tools. Disregarding for a minute that Kant was himself influenced heavily by Newton, Einstein also required mathematical tools from Lorentz, physics tools from Maxwell, etc.


And here's the kicker: it's stated many times in this paper that Einstein was heavily immersed in Kant... during his teenage years. He published his works on Relativity much, much later.

[shlver]

Dude, are you being facetious or just ignorant? You act as if Kant explicitly stated the interpretations of general relativity and Einstein simply produced a few equations. Do you not realize that Kant was heavily influenced by many other people, other philosophers and in particular, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, a physicist and mathematician, respectively? Do you realize Einstein was heavily influenced by Lorentz and formed his theories with discourse from contemporaries like Heisenberg and Schroedinger? Not to mention Einstein made massive intellectual leaps.

Why are you trying to downplay science so much and prop up philosophers? Like everything in life, there is an interplay between the two. Yes, philosophy absolutely created the foundations for science as we know it today to emerge. But to attribute general relativity, other than a rough framework, to Kant is just spreading misinformation. Artists, athletes, and musicians have not driven intellectual evolution yet were it not for them, there wouldn't be a life worth living for the philosophers and scientists.

edit: Kant created a framework and influenced relativity. He may have influenced particular aspects of relativity but he sure as hell wasn't the mastermind behind it which involves, among many other things, a model of the relationship between frames of reference with non-constant acceleration (or without constant velocity, I'm not sure which tbh). This is already insanely complex and isn't even the most complex parts of his theory. The jump between special and general relativity was a massive fvcking intellectual leap by Einstein and downplaying this or attributing it to Kant makes you look foolish. And yes, I have studied special relativity before and no, I have not studied general relativity because that **** is difficult as **** and also not very applicable to our nice Newtonian-approximated world.


http://www.academia.edu/248944/The_Kantian_Grounding_of_Einsteins_Worldview_I_The _Early_Influence_of_Kants_System_of_Perspectives

http://www.academia.edu/3307162/The_Kantian_Grounding_of_Einsteins_Worldview_II_Si multaneity_Synthetic_Apriority_and_the_Mystical

Here's a paper analyzing this. Notice that the author titled the paper the "Kantian GROUNDING of Einstein's Worldview" (kind of like what you said...) and a grounding does not mean Kant did all or even most of the work, as stated in the papers (nothing like what you said/implied). Kant's influence touched upon simultinaeity, the nature of time, and other important aspects, but does not encompass the entirety of the theory of relativity. Kant is just one piece of the relativity puzzle when it comes to Einstein. He is not greater than Newon, Maxwell, Lorentz, etc.



Kant gave him the philosophical tools. Disregarding for a minute that Kant was himself influenced heavily by Newton, Einstein also required mathematical tools from Lorentz, physics tools from Maxwell, etc.


And here's the kicker: it's stated many times in this paper that Einstein was heavily immersed in Kant... during his teenage years. He published his works on Relativity much, much later.
well said.

[miller-time]

Kant gave him the philosophical tools. Disregarding for a minute that Kant was himself influenced heavily by Newton, Einstein also required mathematical tools from Lorentz, physics tools from Maxwell, etc.

I've been trying to explain this to him for ages but he can't grasp it. He will simply respond by saying Newton was influenced by Descartes and therefore philosophy supersedes science again. It is sort of a weird never ending regressive one sided world view this guy has.

[Dresta]

I'm reluctant to give Newton much praise because there is a lot of evidence suggesting he was an idea stealer, who would take the theories of others and claim them as his own. Added to that, he was an alchemist, who somehow became Master of the Royal mint (did a poor job) and then went around hang-drawing and quartering people. Big asshole.


Yeah remember the time Alexander Fleming was reading The Big Book of Kant and suddenly realized that penicillin had anti-biotic properties? Oh no wait that was after he observed something in an experiment. He only saved billions of people with that "observation"..
He did discover that completely by accident though, it wasn't even an experiment: he just left some petrie dishes out and came back to find mould (penicillin) growing in them :lol.

Very important discovery of course, but not particularly impressive intellectually.


:applause: Kant's a stupid bich. Change his name to kunt.
His name was Kunt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw

:oldlol:

[oarabbus]

I've been trying to explain this to him for ages but he can't grasp it. He will simply respond by saying Newton was influenced by Descartes and therefore philosophy supersedes science again. It is sort of a weird never ending regressive one sided world view this guy has.


:lol That's really a great way to put it. I gave credit where credit is due but he seems to be averse to that idea.

[Dresta]

:cheers:

Good post man. I see why you thought I was targeting you somewhat with my earlier comments, and I'll apologize for the lol smileys at your initial post, that certainly didn't help my case and was a bit immature. Regarding Meditations, it is indeed a book about how to live your life, about rationality, morals and ethics. He touches upon metaphysics as well, and speaks of the nature of space and time (of course, this is the interpretation of the reader+translator, the book speaks in more vague terms about "the substance of the Whole" etc). I only brought him up due to your earlier post crediting Hume with human institutions/morality, but I see now where you are coming from. I wanted to point out that some roots of Hume's ideas are present in Meditations (including cognitive science, to a degree, but certainly not explicitly), which is what I meant by "Hume's ideas have been around for a very long time" but that was... well, wrong. It seemed to me as if you were portraying Hume as an island who singlehandedly created all of these ideas from nothing but reading the rest of your posts have made it clear what you meant.

Anyway, OP made comments ranging from extremely questionable to asinine. I really don't think he has a grasp on what Stephen "Hawkins" has brought to the table or any of these other "nerds" who apparently are worthless and have simply copied philosophical ideas and translated them into mathematics (even though that by itself is quite impressive). I mean, if someone claimed to have read works by "Desmond Hume" and was denouncing them... it's more than just a simple typo when you are trying to discredit someone's achievements. Well I'm getting off topic here, basically OP has said some bizarre things but you made good posts and I enjoyed this discourse. That's quite high praise of Hume you've given, so I'll have to do my due diligence and delve deeper into his works. Is there something in particular you recommend?
Yer, but my comments weren't OP's, i was just giving some props to Hume. And i'm pretty sure he's being hyperbolic and knows it, but his general point that philosophical works have become overlooked and disregarded in preference of the worship of science is a valid one. Statistics have become the barometer upon which almost all decisions are made, yet any competent mathematician will tell you it is very easy to manipulate statistics to your chosen end. Hand them some data and say 'i want you to show this' and they will usually be able to do it. p. tiddy with his constant posting of charts without context is a good example of this kind of thoughtless acceptance of statistics.

There are of course great scientists and i by no means disparage their achievements (both my parents are scientists actually, and my father has recently discovered what may be a pioneering breakthrough in the treatment of AML), so i would openly acknowledge that they do many great things, and that it is one of the most honourable professions around imo. But there is also a lot of waste in the scientific community, and there are strong pushes to try and make it more practical and less theoretical, with more junk science being churned out by the day.

I have the Meditations on my kindle and want to read it, but am a bit reluctant to read translated works that are free e-book editions. It's been on my to-read list for a while though. As for Hume, most of his ideas are contained in his 'Treatise on Human Nature', but he wrote a lot of very good essays on various topics (law, ethics, economics etc) which outline and then elaborate on these ideas in a more digestible form ('enquiry concerning the principles of morals', for example). So i would read the 'Treatise' first, then work through the essays, and then read the Treatise again (i still need to read it a second time). The remarkable thing about his work is the consistency to his philosophical principles that runs throughout. And his works have a lot of relevance to the present day and give insight to current problems, for example (from the Treatise):

'it is evident that if men were to regulate their conduct in this particular [the appointment of magistrates] by the view of a particular interest, either public or private, they would involve themselves in endless confusion, and would render all government, in a great measure, ineffectual. The private interest of everyone is different; and though the public interest in itself is always one and the same, yet it becomes the source of great dissensions, by reason of the different opinions of particular persons concerning it . . . were we to follow the same advantage, in assigning particular possessions to particular persons, we should disappoint our end, and perpetuate the confusion which that rule is intended to prevent. We must, therefore, proceed by general rules, and regulate ourselves by general interests.'

without fixed rules he says men 'would conduct themselves, on most occasions, by particular judgements, and would take into consideration the characters and circumstances of the person, as well as the general nature of the question. But it is easy to observe that this would produce an infinite confusion in human society, and that the avidity and partiality of men would quickly bring disorder into the world, if not restrained by some general and inflexible principles.'

[bladefd]

But you keep divorcing the concepts. Science is an extension of philosophy (stemming from natural philosophy). Of course philosophical concepts are going to weigh in. Because they both related to understanding the universe. Saying quantum physics owes a lot to Kant is like saying gene therapy or cloning owes a lot to Hippocrates. It is a continuational process. Sure they might not exist or might have developed in a different manner without him but they are contributions that developed without his direct presence or contribution.

No one is saying the great philosophers haven't contributed to our collective knowledge but that shouldn't mitigate the contributions from the people that came after them. I mean if you go down that path then why give Kant all the credit and instead give it to the people that came before him, or the ones before them, or the first guy who looked up at the starts in 30,000 BC and thought "why are we here?"

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Isaac Newton said that (Newton wasn't the first to note that). That is how ideas and knowledge works. Nobody comes up with a truly original idea or thought. Every idea is one that somebody else has thought of at least once, but it is the person that acts on it first that gets the credit. We continuously work on advancing and working on top of ideas that others have thought of. Even then, the resulting idea is never a truly original idea. Humans have lived through too many generations for that to be not true.

Therefore, for anyone to credit everything science comes up with to philosophy or vice-verse is illogical and lacking of basic understanding. The basis of it is simply to fulfill the OP's need to argue.

[bladefd]

What is the starting point of Science? A theory.

What is a theory? An idea.

Where are the best ideas coming from? Philosophy.

Science is nothing more than a product of the mind.


Science starts not with a theory. Science always starts with a question. It could be a basic or non-basic question. Theory comes much later.

If you were to understand that basic concept, you would realize that both science and philosophy manifest from the same tree of contemplating knowledge & the desire for knowledge.

[miller-time]

He did discover that completely by accident though, it wasn't even an experiment: he just left some petrie dishes out and came back to find mould (penicillin) growing in them :lol.

Very important discovery of course, but not particularly impressive intellectually.

But he was able to recognize the significance of the phenomena he saw. That is what science does. It observes phenomena and then attempts to explain it. It happened to be an accident in the sense that the experiment wasn't designed to explore anti-biotic properties of penicillin. But the phenomena occurred none the less and Fleming jumped on it. The point is that science isn't subservient to philosophy as Rambo claims, it is its own animal now. The foundations may have been built by philosophers (many of whom were more likely polymaths that dabbled in philosophy, science, mathematics, and even the arts) but that doesn't mean they should get all of the praise. They should get their just dues no doubt, but to dismiss the work of Hawking or Einstein is ****ing ridiculous.

[shlver]

What is the starting point of Science? A theory.

What is a theory? An idea.

Where are the best ideas coming from? Philosophy.

Science is nothing more than a product of the mind.
A theory is not "an idea." Theory, as used in scientific nomenclature, is the falsifiable, predictive explanation of natural phenomena. Theories are supported by gathering measurements and observations from experiments. For example, the theory of evolution is supported by observations and experiments from various sciences, ie microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, thermodynamics, biology/anatomy, zoology, etc. A theory is much more than just an idea.

[kentatm]

Ohh look, another thread where Rambo tries to sound smart b/c he skimmed an article!

:sleeping

[bladefd]

http://i.imgur.com/kY1x7I9.jpg

[Overdrive]

A theory is not "an idea." Theory, as used in scientific nomenclature, is the falsifiable, predictive explanation of natural phenomena. Theories are supported by gathering measurements and observations from experiments. For example, the theory of evolution is supported by observations and experiments from various sciences, ie microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, thermodynamics, biology/anatomy, zoology, etc. A theory is much more than just an idea.

That's the third thread in which he mixes up hypothesis and theory, I doubt he ever gets it.

[oarabbus]

But he was able to recognize the significance of the phenomena he saw. That is what science does. It observes phenomena and then attempts to explain it. It happened to be an accident in the sense that the experiment wasn't designed to explore anti-biotic properties of penicillin. But the phenomena occurred none the less and Fleming jumped on it. The point is that science isn't subservient to philosophy as Rambo claims, it is its own animal now. The foundations may have been built by philosophers (many of whom were more likely polymaths that dabbled in philosophy, science, mathematics, and even the arts) but that doesn't mean they should get all of the praise. They should get their just dues no doubt, but to dismiss the work of Hawking or Einstein is ****ing ridiculous.


:applause:

Very eloquently said, especially the part about the polymaths which is on point. Hawking, Einstein, Feynman, all these guys have contributed truly groundbreaking, game-changing ideas.

[IamRAMBO24]

This thread has succeeded. Intelligent debates are rare and few around here, what better way to get people riled up other than to attack the thing they cherish the most: science?

Keep on fighting guys. This thread is a better education than your entire highschool and college years. You're actually talking about real world ideas instead of memorizing and repeating sh*t.

[oarabbus]

A theory is not "an idea." Theory, as used in scientific nomenclature, is the falsifiable, predictive explanation of natural phenomena. Theories are supported by gathering measurements and observations from experiments. For example, the theory of evolution is supported by observations and experiments from various sciences, ie microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, thermodynamics, biology/anatomy, zoology, etc. A theory is much more than just an idea.


That's the third thread in which he mixes up hypothesis and theory, I doubt he ever gets it.



This thread has succeeded. Intelligent debates are rare and few around here, what better way to get people riled up other than to attack the thing they cherish the most: science?

Keep on fighting guys. This thread is a better education than your entire highschool and college years. You're actually talking about real world ideas instead of memorizing and repeating sh*t.


:roll:

I hope I'm not the only one appreciating the irony here.

[Akrazotile]

OP is stephen hawkins

[IamRAMBO24]

OP is stephen hawkins

:oldlol:

[DonD13]

This thread has succeeded. Intelligent debates are rare and few around here, what better way to get people riled up other than to attack the thing they cherish the most: science?

Keep on fighting guys. This thread is a better education than your entire highschool and college years. You're actually talking about real world ideas instead of memorizing and repeating sh*t.

this.
I have printed this thread using ISH very own printing function so I can hand it out to young people.

[IamRAMBO24]

this.
I have printed this thread using ISH very own printing function so I can hand it out to young people.

Good, spread the word.

Anyways, don't let me distract from the intellectual conversations going on; I just have an effect on trolls: they come out of the woodwork like a pack of hyenas whenever I post, so excuse me and carry on. Thanks.