The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Brian37]

BINGO!

So if you call it an idea, people wont get married to it. But when you call it a philosophy, people cherry pick the connections and consistencies interdependency.

Its the other way around. Calling it an idea (or a collection of ideas) allows people to do the cherry-picking. Philosophy is to taken as a consistent whole.

Rand had her head up her ass.

What a brilliant argument.

Now, think for a second. When you have competing claims how do we settle those competing claims?

By determining which one is more logical or rational.

Using the word "philosophy" is SUBJECTIVE, it is used in politics and religion as well so it IS only a subjective word and cannot be universally applied.

Applicability to many things does not make it subjective. Philosophy is the study of nature of things and those things might be religion, politics and science. Thus we have political philosophy, philosophy or religion and yes, philosophy of science as well.

Ideas though, can be put through the universal tool of scientific method. The personal ideas or "Philosophies" of the scientists does not make the tool of method itself a mere "philosophy" it is a tool THAT WE USE TO FIND CONSISTENCIES.

Not all ideas are subject to examination by the scientific method. And you simply display ignorance of meaning of the word if you equate personal ideas of scientists to a philosophy.

If you are an ethical scientist, you don't want or should not want your ideas given taboo status. The ethical person wants the shit kicked out of their claims and put through the rigors of the TOOL of method to FIND THE CONSISTENCIES.

For anyone to be an ethical anything, philosophy is required, since ethics is a branch of philosophy.

That implies stagnation. "ethics" change just like morals change, calling any of those things a "philosophy" like "less government" and "bigger government" have been "philosophies" have become dogmatic for those who support them.

"ethics" is a changing idea. If you treat something as something that is flowing instead of sedentary, you open yourself up to changing conditions which opens you up to possible answers in the future.

It was once "ethical" to own slaves. But if you call "ethics" a mere idea, guess what, we improved as a species by rejecting that "ethic" and thus "ethics" was open to change.

Let me meet you half way on this. I UNDERSTAND why the words are used. The problem is that while scientists use the past to influence their paths forward, you are still dealing with humans, not robots.

What you call "philosophy" I would rather put it this way.

I stick by my IDEA that Scientific method is a TOOL not a philosophy because scientists can have different ideas of how to use that tool to gain data which is METHODOLOGY.

Scientists have ideas of what is the best METHODOLOGY will lead them to the most accurate data, which leads to the fields of "ethics".

In science I like the usage of METHODOLOGY rather than Philosophy. you can have different "ideas" or as you would say "philosophies" as to how to get data. I call that methodology, not philosophy.

"Philosophy" as a word is to me to damned dogmatic and has the baggage of worship like religion. If we are open to change which we all should be, we should use TOOLS, not "philosophies".

Plato's "Philosophy" of "essence" had no credible standard, so calling something a "philosophy" is meaningless. If he had the modern TOOL of methodology, he would have been able to understand how wrong he was.

Read the preface of "The Greatest Show on Earth". Dawkins blames much of the dogmatism on plato because of that "philosophy". To say that scientists cannot get dogmatic is absurd, lots of junk science and bad science stems from that mentality of treating something as if it should be worshiped.