How worthless is Philosophy?

[vulcanlogician]

Science is useful because it makes correct predictions.  

True.

Its utility and its correctness are inseparable.  

False. They are independent metrics.

As to whether the causal story that science provides, its correctness is a deep question.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Some theists posit that the universe is regular and ordered because of the constant action of God.  How do we divine whether that is correct versus appealing to invisible forces?

Well, we can't disprove the theists there. But we can show how their explanation is superfluous.

Plus that, they did a lot of "god of gaps" stuff when they were in charge. They provided more than enough rope during that period to hang themselves. Sure, that doesn't refute their claims, but we should remember how all that went down.

Until they show that God is necessary for anything (without resorting to fiat) then we are well within our rights to not take their claims seriously.

[HappySkeptic]

Science is useful because it makes correct predictions.  

True.

Its utility and its correctness are inseparable.  

False. They are independent metrics.

As to whether the causal story that science provides, its correctness is a deep question.

What exactly do you mean by that?

I have to agree with Angrboda on this, at least from a pedantic point of view.  

Science provides pragmatic truth only.  Because it can only disprove claims, it can't strictly prove causality, nor can it prove that its models correspond to any Platonic reality.

[vulcanlogician]

Science provides pragmatic truth only. 

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. There may be no practical value in establishing how many Eukaryotes existed 500 million years ago. But science can still furnish us with that information.

Because it can only disprove claims, it can't strictly prove causality, nor can it prove that its models correspond to any Platonic reality.

Yup. Science assumes causality. But it can't explain it. To be fair, even philosophy fumbles the ball too.

And "double yup"... science will never prove that any of its models correspond to Plato's ideas. And any effort on science's part to do so would be a complete waste of time. Maybe if you went the math route. Like, math has explanatory power, as Plato thought it did. But that's a bit of a stretch.

--Also nice to see you again, dude. Hope you've been well.--

I remember talking to you some time before... you were saying that QM had a "measurement problem"... as in, QM as a theory couldn't define what a measurement really was. Has any headway been made in that regard since we last spoke? Or do you have any further thoughts on that at least?

[HappySkeptic]

--Also nice to see you again, dude. Hope you've been well.--

I remember talking to you some time before... you were saying that QM had a "measurement problem"... as in, QM as a theory couldn't define what a measurement really was. Has any headway been made in that regard since we last spoke? Or do you have any further thoughts on that at least?

I'm doing well, thanks.  I'm still working because they pay me too much to retire.

No headway has been made with the QM measurement problem.  The Many Worlds Interpretation doesn't solve it - it just shifts the problem from "how does the wavefunction collapse?" to "how do I end up in one of the Worlds and not all of them at once?".  That's an identical problem.

Most physicists punt the problem.  It is something that happens when the system-under-test interacts with the "environment".  The problem is that the boundary between the two is artificial.  Every system is something else's environment.

[vulcanlogician]

No headway has been made with the QM measurement problem.  The Many Worlds Interpretation doesn't solve it - it just shifts the problem from "how does the wavefunction collapse?" to "how do I end up in one of the Worlds and not all of them at once?".  That's an identical problem.

Do you think QM should make efforts to define what a measurement is? Or is that even possible? When you say physicists "punt" the problem, I get the impression you (at least mildly) disapprove of this activity. Should physicists try to take on the problem? Rather than punting?

[Belacqua]

I haven't read much Plato, but the question of how worthless philosophy is may be something I have some thoughts about.  When we're talking about how much something is worth, different standards may be at play, and often people use the most disadvantageous standard when talking about something they don't like.  This leads to rather biased assessments.  An assessment can come from a purely subjective standpoint, as in chocolate ice cream being worthless because I don't like chocolate ice cream.  Alternatively one can try rational justification which ultimately leads to subjective values, but ones which are more universal.  

Commonly, it is compared to the instrumental utility of science.  I think this is a bit misleading as science itself is pretty useless except insofar as its accuracy in describing reality can be instrumentally useful in the development of technology.  Knowing Einstein's theories alone is pretty inutile.  Turning that knowledge into GPS satellites on the other hand, useful.  I think this distinction is overlooked in criticizing philosophy.  By itself, it may also be inutile, but in as much as it accurately describes something real, it can be turned into human technology and thought technology.  Curmudgeons may complain about the uselessness of post-modernism, yet use logic to do it.  Science fans may argue the uselessness of philosophy, yet be the first to turn around and make use of the concept of falsification in their arguments.  And nobody serious would consider the question of a TOE without thinking of Godel being in the background.  And quantum physics is overflowing with philosophical questions.  These indirect uses of philosophy get dismissed by philosophy's critics and overlooked by the ignorant.

But instrumental utility itself is only one of multiple possible standards.  Nobody would complain that because nobody built a boat with them, the Mona Lisa and Tolstoy's War and Peace are worthless.  You'd have to be a boorish Philistine to assert such things.

Yes, I think these are all good points. When we ask "is it useful?", we have to ask "useful for what?" 

Nowadays usefulness is generally interpreted in terms of 1) making money, or 2) increasing efficiency/reducing labor. 

Socrates is aiming at self-knowledge. So when we ask whether his philosophy is useful or not, I think we'd want to ask whether we know ourselves better through his methods or not. If we do, then it's useful. 

And I think the goal of self-knowledge is generally to ask, "Am I a good person or not?" Obviously, the utility of making money or increasing efficiency is no help to the world if the people who are doing those things are bad people.

[Cog]

Should this discipline be required in college? Should students who are pursuing unrelated degrees be required to take any philosophy classes at all at university? Why or why not?

What about History? Should business majors be required to take History 101? Why or why not?

Personally, I think philosophy is largely useless unless one thinks that politics, law, or morality is useful. So, therefore, I tend to think that most philosophy courses are useless to those who pursue business degrees and such. Even scientists, though they may be interested in philosophy, and not too shabby at philosophizing either... philosophy doesn't help science much at all. Even philosophy of science doesn't help science. Let alone the rest of it.

But I do think philosophy is immensely useful to those who pursue political science or law. Maybe even science to some degree. But, meh. Only so useful to scientists...

I think two philosophy courses ought to be required of all students: ethics 101 and logic 101. Beyond that, philosophy is useless to the vast majority of professions.

You've asked a bunch of questions. (Nothing is required: however, discipline is very useful.)  Philosophy classes should teach critical thinking and logical reasoning. At least at the end of a philosophy course, a person should be able to construct a valid and sound argument while avoiding logical fallacies. 

There are no 'shoulds.' It may be useful. Some will and some will not. Why is your world so full of 'shoulds?'

So you don't believe the average person on the street could benefit from understanding basic logical fallacies, 'bandwagon, slippery slope, argument from ignorance, ad hoc ergo proper hoc, black swan fallacy, or others?  I strongly disagree. 

Philosophy does not help science?  You could not be more wrong.  But given all the 'shoulds' you have in your previous comments, it is easy to see how you have arrived at that conclusion. You seem to live in a very black-and-white world and cannot understand the areas of grey. Perhaps if you had a philosophy class you would understand the burden of proof and how sweeping generalizations are often erroneous. 

Did you not just contradict yourself with your final statement?  You spend all that time denouncing philosophy and then state: that you believe two courses should be required.  You seem very confused.

[The Grand Nudger]

The grey area of "should" is plentiful.

Supposing that there is some set of criteria that ought to compel a normative response in a subject, it is still an open question as to whether or not it can or will, what that means for the moral agent whatever they decide, and what that decisions means for the moral agents relationship(s) to other moral agents. I'll use a purely subjectivist example to show this.

If we posit that, because of our shared biology, there is a category of things that ought to be "bad"..or even just revolting - it may still be the case that a person does not conform to the expectation. Perhaps they're just wired different, in a non pejorative way. They're fully functioning in every respect..individually, socially, but in some non-threatening manner uncommon to the general population they have a thrown switch. Or, it may be, that there is something demonstrably and biologically wrong with them. They are malfunctioning because of some inherited disorder, life trauma, or bodily damage. Or...it may be....that they are non-novel, un-damaged, and simply un-compelled. Perhaps the effect of our biological and social conditioning is not entirely uniform among all members of our species. Maybe our brains aren't explicitly or exclusively rational as a matter of fact or process. In all of these cases, we have the possibility of some cognizable set of bads which does not lead to any binary resolution.

...and then....

In any of the cases above, other moral agents (who may be in any of the states described) can rationally or credibly disagree about the interpretation or description of the first agents moral content, their own ability to accurately assess moral content as a second or third party, and the specific resolution of moral dilemma, conflicts, and responsibilities. We may view the damaged as less deserving of moral judgement. We may accept a "bad" decision with some sufficient list of confounding factors...most notable of all those factors being our fundamental moral capabilities. Do we understand that there are exterior circumstances which strongly dissuade moral behavior? Do we understand that people can have many compelling reasons to fail, or can be presented with impossible situations - where all options are bad or equally bad? Do we then believe that scorn is unwarranted or less warranted? Or, in the case of good moral action...do we think that some people are just naturally good or better than others? That because they are more typical of the biological norm less effort or consideration (if any) is required for them to arrive at good decisions? Should we revere them for this..or should we withhold praise because the the good they do is more or less water flowing downhill? Should people..fundamentally...get exactly what they deserve...more than they deserve, less than they deserve...and do the answers to those things change when we think about good things..and then bad things?