How much do you like philosophy?

[MindForgedManacle]

Yes. You're right, I DID specifically ask you for questions philosophy has answered. What you gave was a little different though?

I really didn't think I had to spell out the absurdly obvious.

"Truth is correspondence between assertion and reality." - Statement.

Obvious relevant question: "What is truth?"

"Knowledge is a justified true belief." - Statement.

Obvious relevant question: "What is knowledge?/What does it mean to know something?"

"Reason is entirely guided by one's emotions." - Statement.

Obvious relevant question: "What, if anything, guides human reasoning?" (i.e is it free from emotions, or could it be even in principle?)

"Talking of a world devoid of subjective experience is meaningless." - Statement.

Obvious relevant question: "Can we know the world as it is entirely apart from subjective human experience?"

Maybe I'm missing something. Where are the questions?

I thought the answers made unmistakably clear what they were answering.

[Angrboda]

"Up yours, Rayaan."

(For 200 points and the win, name the comment that got me fired as a moderator.....)

[The G-Man]

Some of it is interesting but on the whole a lot of it is a step away from reality.

[Nine]

Philosophy doesn't agree with me. I took exception to it when I was taking a Philosophy of Religion class and have avoided thinking about it since. I'd probably like it better if I hadn't taken that class full of assholes.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Some of it is interesting but on the whole a lot of it is a step away from reality.

That must be why I like it, because reality... SUCKS!

[Napoléon]

I really didn't think I had to spell out the absurdly obvious.

Well if the absurdly obvious answers the actual question I asked in the first place I'd say you do.

Obvious relevant question: "What is truth?"

Obvious relevant question: "What is knowledge?/What does it mean to know something?"

Obvious relevant question: "What, if anything, guides human reasoning?" (i.e is it free from emotions, or could it be even in principle?)

Obvious relevant question: "Can we know the world as it is entirely apart from subjective human experience?"

--

I thought the answers made unmistakably clear what they were answering.

Well, for starters, a couple of those weren't exactly obvious (I'll admit I'm having a dumb day so apologies if I'm the only one who thinks so). For seconds, I'd argue that for each and every question you could have a wildly different answer, and each one would be just as philosophically accurate (or true/viable whatever word you wish to use) as the next. And this is my problem with philosophy in general.

For instance, for "What is knowledge", you say "knowledge is a justified true belief" as the definitive answer. As though there are no others.

My contention? There could be many different answers to this question of "What is knowledge", and in fact philosophers themselves aren't in agreement over this very thing.

The definition of knowledge is a matter of ongoing debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[3] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. There are a number of alternatives proposed, including Robert Nozick's arguments for a requirement that knowledge 'tracks the truth' and Simon Blackburn's additional requirement that we do not want to say that those who meet any of these conditions 'through a defect, flaw, or failure' have knowledge. Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the evidence for the belief necessitates its truth.

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

Yeah I'm quoting a wiki article. So what.

My point is, philosophy is great posing questions, exploring the possible answers and coming up with theories. I'm not here bashing it for that, my only main gripe with philosophy as a form of discerning anything true about the world is that it can't really give you a definitive answer. It's only really good at asking questions. Science on the other hand, can provide you with answers, by way of testable, provable and predictable hypothesis. Can you 'test' the answers philosophy gives? Can you prove them? Can you predict results with them? Not from any brand of philosophy I've seen. So in essence, I'm not all that interested in any answers philosophy does attempt to give me.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well if the absurdly obvious answers the actual question I asked in the first place I'd say you do.

Which they in fact did.

Well, for starters, a couple of those weren't exactly obvious (I'll admit I'm having a dumb day so apologies if I'm the only one who thinks so). For seconds, I'd argue that for each and every question you could have a wildly different answer, and each one would be just as philosophically accurate (or true/viable whatever word you wish to use) as the next. And this is my problem with philosophy in general.

To be honest, this is a sort of trap I laid for you, which you will see in a mo'. Lol, internet 'traps'.

For instance, for "What is knowledge", you say "knowledge is a justified true belief" as the definitive answer. As though there are no others.

My contention? There could be many different answers to this question of "What is knowledge", and in fact philosophers themselves aren't in agreement over this very thing.

I'm well aware of that, seeing as I actually happen to be studying epistemology in school at the moment. But firstly, where did I say I gave the ONLY answer to the relevant question? No where, and here's where you've trapped yourself. You asked me for questions that philosophy has answered. You didn't ask me for questions philosophy has definitively answered. Now, you may think I'm just been lawyerish here, but I'm not because there's a crucial point to get here: Science does the exact same thing. Science answers questions, but ALWAYS (effectively) probabilistically, not with certainty. Ask a physicist what view of the nature of time physics holds to, and they'll say it holds to a relativistic, B-theoretic view of time as per Einstein. Go back, say, 120 years and ask a physicist that question, and he'll answer that physics holds to an absolute (A-theoretic view) of time, as per Newton and common experience. Now what has happened here? Science answers a question (what is the nature of time), but that question is tentative and depends on the assumptions held by the relevant scientists and the empirical evidence (with their interpretation being guided by the former). And not even all physicists agree with this view of time, so the question could easily be answered differently, yet you hold this double standard without even realizing it. Science can give tentative answers that change over time, but if philosophy doesn't provide answers to questions that are always correct, philosophy's doing something wrong.

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

Yeah I'm quoting a wiki article. So what.

Well, I don't really care. The bit you quoted is kind of irrelevant, but at least it points out the biggest problem with defining knowledge as a "justified true belief": the Gettier cases.

My point is, philosophy is great posing questions, exploring the possible answers and coming up with theories. I'm not here bashing it for that, my only main gripe with philosophy as a form of discerning anything true about the world is that it can't really give you a definitive answer. It's only really good at asking questions. Science on the other hand, can provide you with answers, by way of testable, provable and predictable hypothesis. Can you 'test' the answers philosophy gives? Can you prove them? Can you predict results with them? Not from any brand of philosophy I've seen. So in essence, I'm not all that interested in any answers philosophy does attempt to give me.

Again, you're making the same mistake Min is making, in that you're asking philosophers, who aren't always talking about things amenable to experimentation, to use said inapplicable method. I'll repeat a question I posed earlier (to whom, I forget) that went unanswered and drives home my point: If I want to answer "What is truth?", tell me the scientific experiment I would run to answer it? You should quickly realize why it would be stupid to actually try to answer that question ("what is truth?") by a scientific experiment. And again, you're playing that double standard again: Scientists will openly admit that science provides probabilistic "proofs", but not actual ones. Hence, science can and does change (for the better), as we learn more and correct our models. But oh, when it comes to philosophy it's a problem if it doesn't have some resolute, unyielding answers that can't be disputed, which even science does pretend to attain.

[Angrboda]

MindForgedManacle must be British, because he continues to fight on, despite the battle being lost.

Look, philosophy is like anything else, whether it be beetles of the world or stamp collecting. Some will "get it," and be infected with the same kind of passion. Others will wonder why some people will make such a big deal of beetles, but will leave it at that. And then there's that last group of people, who will be as dissatisfied with the answers of real science as they are with the answers of philosophy.

(I must confess, of all the people to show gross ignorance of science, the person I least expected to bid for most ignorant was pineapplebunnybounce. It just goes to underscore the unfortunate truth that you don't have to know the first thing about science to be a scientist. Maybe the creationists were right...)

[pineapplebunnybounce]

MindForgedManacle must be British, because he continues to fight on, despite the battle being lost.

Look, philosophy is like anything else, whether it be beetles of the world or stamp collecting. Some will "get it," and be infected with the same kind of passion. Others will wonder why some people will make such a big deal of beetles, but will leave it at that. And then there's that last group of people, who will be as dissatisfied with the answers of real science as they are with the answers of philosophy.

(I must confess, of all the people to show gross ignorance of science, the person I least expected to bid for most ignorant was pineapplebunnybounce. It just goes to underscore the unfortunate truth that you don't have to know the first thing about science to be a scientist. Maybe the creationists were right...)

I wasn't going to bother. But go ahead, qualify your statement, if I am indeed ignorant about science, I would like to know exactly how.

[Angrboda]

I wasn't going to bother. But go ahead, qualify your statement, if I am indeed ignorant about science, I would like to know exactly how.

You shouldn't have bothered. But thanks for the information.