Destroying Science with Philosophy

[DonDadda59]

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

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

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

[Dictator]

What was the point of this?

[oh the horror]

What was the point of this?

That's very philosophical of you.

[miller-time]

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

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

[greymatter]

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

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

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

[OldSkoolball#52]

He blinded me with... philosophy!

[Dresta]

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

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

[miller-time]

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

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

[Dresta]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[miller-time]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IamRAMBO24]

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

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

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

Descartes developed calculus?

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

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

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

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

[miller-time]

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

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

[IamRAMBO24]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IamRAMBO24]

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

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

Today we call that plagiarizing.

[IamRAMBO24]

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

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

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

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

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

You have a way with words.