I've just given up trying to argue with him. People who think philosophy has somehow been replaced by science need to go and read a fucking dictionary...or maybe take a few college courses.

Sigh. Some people aren't ready to move up from the kid's table and join the adult conversation.

---

(February 15, 2013 at 8:47 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I've just given up trying to argue with him. People who think philosophy has somehow been replaced by science need to go and read a fucking dictionary...or maybe take a few college courses.

...or just read a bit a learn what the field of philosophy encompasses - and what science doesn't.

(February 15, 2013 at 8:47 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I've just given up trying to argue with him. People who think philosophy has somehow been replaced by science need to go and read a fucking dictionary...or maybe take a few college courses.

Surpassed, not replaced. It is good to know the past but it is not good to get stuck in it.

And like I said before, I hate the word "Philosophy"

I know that it is "a way of thinking". Now some parts of "ways of thinking" like a wheels are still on cars, but they are not made of wood any longer.

But hating the word does not mean I don't understand the definition.

Politics and religions are also called "Philosophies" but they do not apply equally to all people all the time. I hate the word philosophy because people get married to those things. You don't move forward being married to something, you get stuck. You can take an idea, keep some of what works, and scrap the rest. Much like scientific method can allow for you to take an idea and keep what works and discard what doesn't.

Now, if something is merely an idea, people can test it and they don't have to get married to it. Further down the road, all of the parts, or some of the parts, or none of that idea can either pan out, or not pan out. Much like Newton got physics right but Alchemy was dead wrong.

Are there good ideas from the past that science is built on today, HELL YEA. But we don't dwell on all of the past or simply stay in the past.

Ocham's razor still applies today, but I refuse to call it a "philosophy" it is however an idea that has stood the test of time. Science is built on the same idea that to solve a problem you reduce as much complicated and or superfluous baggage and start simple, then work your way up.

I am talking about the word itself, not the things science has been built upon. Science would not be what it is today without a past and some of the ideas of the past still apply today. I simply hate the word.

Simply put Brian... Without philosophy, science would never search for the "what if". It's a way of thinking, not something pertaining to matter...
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ9wNT21c_s

Brian, your most recent post in this thread is total hogwash for one reason that you may not realize. There are two definitions of philosophy. One means a discipline or area of study. The other is a worldview or view on a certain thing. For example, my philosophy on reading is to do as much of it as possible. (bad example) That has nothing at all to do with philosophy the field of study.

If I understand the question here correctly, it is simple. Whether or not this is reality is not quantifiable. Since it is not quantifiable, there is no evidence to suggest it is true or false. There is no way to prove it. By saying that, you are also saying there is no way to disprove. You cannot logically except it as absolutely true or absolutely false. That is all philosophy, including logic. It has nothing to do with science.

Brian,

If there is anything left of you that might be labeled reasonable; consider this:

Science allows me to build and deploy a nuclear weapon anywhere I want. Science also informs me in great detail, without the need for demonstration, what the consequences of delivery and detonation would be. Science will inform my decision to use the weapon or not, but science is fuck all capable of making the decision for me. To make the decision, I need philosophy.

You proclaim to hate the word 'philosophy', ignoring the fact that you use philosophy at least in the sense of assigning value in order to make this claim. Rather amusing. Doubt my reasoning? What makes you find some words acceptable, but 'hate' the word philosophy? Can you use science to answer this question?

I think I finally understand Brian's psychology tonight. Legendary psychologist Daniel Kahneman has a new book out, Thinking Fast and Slow (which I haven't read, but have had explained to me). According to his latest research, humans use two separate cognitive systems or strategies for dealing with the world. One fast, and one slow. The majority of the time we resort to the fast system, because, well it's fast. If we always relied on the slow system, we'd never be able to respond to the vast majority of stimuli in the time frame in which a response is needed. The fast system is characterized by making quick, approximate but frequently useful, if not accurate, responses. The slow system is all about taking the time to think through the details of the problem in question, using reason and logic, and perhaps some original thought, to produce a deep understanding of the question. The fast system is more geared towards substituting rules of thumb and pragmatic responses. The fast system is strongly geared toward pattern matching, as it prefers to use canned responses, as applying them is very fast. One of its strategies toward this end is, if a problem doesn't match one of its current templates, it will attempt to "recast" and "retranslate" the problem into a pattern it does recognize, regardless of how much distortion of the original problem is required to make the translated form fit the existing template. Once the template is matched, even if by an imperfect translation, a response is generated based on that template. Naturally, if the distortion required to match the template is significant, the response generated will be significantly mismatched to the actual problem and result in significant error. The greater the distortion, the less practical and effective the result. Even so, because of the nature of behavior and environment, even many of these imperfect solutions "work" well enough to get us by, and generally, nobody is the wiser. (Probably in part due to most people doing the same thing; with everybody generating system 1 responses, there's nobody left to say, "hey, that's distorted.")

I think most can fill in the details from here with regard to Brian. He doesn't do a lot of deep, system 2 thinking, so the bulk of his responses are generated by system 1, the fast system. Unfortunately, many of the questions generated on a forum like this require system 2 thinking to develop an effective and practical response to them (such as this discussion). I could go into more detail, but for lack of a better way of putting it, Brian seems largely stuck in system 1 thinking, doling out replies which are based on a limited set of templates. Any time he's faced with a novel question requiring system 2 thinking, his system 1 swoops in, retranslates the question into something it understands, and vomits out a more or less canned response. Ultimately Brian isn't either at fault, or likely even aware it is happening; the choice of system 1 is made in the absence of system 2 triggers, and isn't really consciously controlled; his system 1 thinking grabs the problem, translates it to fit a template, and generates a response based on the template, without his attentional systems being even given the opportunity to consider anything else.

This is probably why it's so frustrating, because he's obviously not aware of how he is "systematically misunderstanding the question," and those debating him are unable to see how it's possible that someone of average intelligence could so consistently miss the boat. My prudence and religious teachings counsel me not to continue banging my head on behaviors of people like Brian, rather than the psychology, but I'm human too, and have the same desires to get through to such people. I so want there to be some way to break through and make him see, just as in arguing with a theist whose illogic and delusion you wish you could "break through" to make them see it for what it is. Ultimately though, I think it's a fool's errand. But I could be wrong. Something has to be responsible for the growing secularization of the world, and I suppose it makes as much sense to attribute it to millions of little victories as to the few big ones.

(Btw, this is all speculation on my part, so take it with the grain of salt it deserves. It does seem to fit, though, doesn't it?)

(February 15, 2013 at 9:32 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I hate the word philosophy because people get married to those things.

A very stupid reason to hate a word, IMO.

People (some people, not all) get "married" to many other things aside from philosophy such as science, mathematics, art, music, food, religion, history, etc.

Do you hate those words also.just because people get "married" to them?

Actually, it doesn't fit at all. But that's ok, you can take the slow route next time...
.