Destroying Science with Philosophy

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Einstein copy righted his works [B]verbatim[/B], hired a mathematician, and [B]formulated his theories from that[/B], 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. [/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=miller-time]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.[/QUOTE]

The start of Philosophy is this:[B] the only thing I know is that I know nothing,[/B] 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 [B]FORMULATES[/B] your world perspective, which is a perspective that believes it is right and everybody else is wrong or stupid. Sounds a lot like Religion [I]*coughs*.[/I]

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.
[B]
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.[/B]

[QUOTE=miller-time]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Dresta]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.[/QUOTE]

You have a way with words.

as a gymnast, I find this thread very confusing

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]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.[/QUOTE]

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 [I]entirely[/I] Kant's. And even less of what you do is yours.

IAmRambo went full retard here.

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.

[QUOTE=miller-time]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 [I]entirely[/I] Kant's. And even less of what you do is yours.[/QUOTE]

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.
[B]
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.[/B]

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. [B][COLOR="Red"]The fact that religion is gaining ground again shows its failure as a world view that brings about human advancement.[/COLOR][/B] 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.

[QUOTE=Dresta]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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?

[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[B]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.[/B]

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.

[B]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.[/B]

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

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]

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?[/QUOTE]

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).

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]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.

[B]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.[/B]

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.

[B]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.[/B]

The greatest deception pulled this century is the manipulation of this pseudo Science.[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]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).[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=miller-time]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]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.

[B]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.[/B][/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Dresta]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.[/quote]

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.

[QUOTE=Dresta] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=miller-time]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.[/QUOTE]

[B]Dogmatisim:[/B] positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when [B]unwarranted[/B] or [B]arrogant.[/B]

[B][COLOR="Red"]Unwarranted:[/COLOR][/B] 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.

[B][COLOR="Red"]Arrogant: [/COLOR][/B] Science won't accept any other truths not within it's realm.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24][B][COLOR="Red"]Unwarranted:[/COLOR][/B] 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.[/quote]

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.

[quote][B][COLOR="Red"]Arrogant: [/COLOR][/B] Science won't accept any other truths not within it's realm.[/QUOTE]

What is a truth that science doesn't accept?

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]An observation alone is NOT a generalization....why can't you comprehend this?[/QUOTE]

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 [B]AFTERWARDS[/B], and not as its starting point.

[QUOTE=travelingman]Quoted because I really don't want you to edit any of this message. So full of :facepalm and :oldlol: and :eek:[/QUOTE]

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 [B]how he came about it[/B] 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.

[B]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.[/B]

[QUOTE=miller-time]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.[/quote]

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. [B]There are only temporary truths.
[/B]

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]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. [B]There are only temporary truths.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You keep missing the main point, [B]practicality[/B]. 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.