[Serious] Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?

[polymath257]

A poor analogy.  Chemists may have abandoned alchemy, but they haven't abandoned logical principles.  You noted yourself earlier in thread that scientists are doing philosophy, and perhaps doing it even better than philosophers of old.

I think you're on to something there.  It seems to me that to be a good philosopher today, you might want to have a solid background in whatever science applies to your subject of focus - and that's been the direction that contemporary philosophy has gone.  I don't know if you can do science absent some philosophy, and you may actually be able to do philosophy absent any science, but, if you could, you'd probably be doing it wrong - if for no other reason than a disparity in the production of sound (or potentially sound) premises.

Again, not everyone using logical principles is doing philosophy. Not everyone engaging in deep thinking is doing philosophy.

You had mentioned Crosby as an example of someone who is doing philosophy with a strong science background. to me, he looks like someone doing much of the typical religious nonsense, but without deities. *shrug* This is definitely NOT a worthwhile area of study in any serious way. Again, good for drinks with friends exploring possibilities. But not much substantive there.

I'm curious if you know any philosophers that actually grapple with the metaphysics that comes out of modern physics. I certainly don't know of any.

[The Grand Nudger]

Everything isn't philosophy - but people using logical principles to make inferences from sound premises derived by observable data are, explicitly, doing philosophy. Science is inductive inference. It is, in my opinion, the single greatest logical tool ever devised by man, and devised very specifically, to provide answers to fundamental questions about ourselves, others, our relationships to others, and our environment.

---

-as far as metaphysics from modern physics.  I enjoyed ann druyans "first, you build a cloud" - mind you, I'm trying to stick to untedious stuff that people might be familiar with or want to read. You could find the tedious scholarly articles you're looking for by searching their peer reviewed journals.

[polymath257]

Everything isn't philosophy - but people using logical principles to make inferences from sound premises derived by observable data are, explicitly, doing philosophy.

I strongly disagree here. Scientists also do this. Philosophy, on the other hand, tends to ignore the objective evidence and use premises that may or may not be sound.

Science is inductive inference.  It is, in my opinion, the single greatest logical tool ever devised by man, and devised very specifically, to provide answers to fundamental questions about ourselves, others, our relationships to others, and our environment.  

No, Science is far more than simply inductive inference. it is the commitment to *test* all ideas with observation. That is the crucial step that helps reduce the effect of confirmation bias.

The step of doing inductive inference is the stage of generating *hypotheses*. That is not the end. it is the beginning. Those hypotheses need to be tested and retested and pushed to their breaking point in a determined way. That is where the confidence that they are valid comes from.

---

-as far as metaphysics from modern physics.  I enjoyed ann druyans "first, you build a cloud" - mind you, I'm trying to stick to untedious stuff that people might be familiar with or want to read.  You could find the tedious scholarly articles you're looking for by searching their peer reviewed journals.

I saw a book with that title by a journalist, K. C. Cole. Google scholar gives some articles by someone with the same name on polymers. Not particularly relevant material, I think.

[The Grand Nudger]

Everything isn't philosophy - but people using logical principles to make inferences from sound premises derived by observable data are, explicitly, doing philosophy.

I strongly disagree here. Scientists also do this. 

Yes, scientists also do this, and the 'this"... is philosophy.  Not all philosophers do science, all scientists do philosophy.  

Philosophy, on the other hand, tends to ignore the objective evidence and use premises that may or may not be sound.

This is what we might think philosophy does, but it may not be based on any actual state of affairs in contemporary philosophy.  There is no form of any objectivist philosophy that does this, for example, and...again, realism is the majority position of contemporary philosophy.  Not just in ethics, everywhere.  

No, Science is far more than simply inductive inference. it is the commitment to *test* all ideas with observation. That is the crucial step that helps reduce the effect of confirmation bias.

The step of doing inductive inference is the stage of generating *hypotheses*. That is not the end. it is the beginning. Those hypotheses need to be tested and retested and pushed to their breaking point in a determined way. That is where the confidence that they are valid comes from.

-and philosophy is also more than inductive inference.  Thing is, there's no territorial dispute here.  There's no knowledge peen measuring contest.  Philosophy alone is incapable of providing us with sound premises.  That's not what it's good at, but that's already baked in.  GIGO, right?  On the other hand, a person cannot do science, cannot even describe what science is...without explicating some philosophy.  There's nothing wrong with that.  The philosophical underpinnings of science have proven themselves over and over again.  The ability of science, in it's own right, to sharpen our philosophy is..likewise, not in doubt.

I saw a book with that title by a journalist, K. C. Cole. Google scholar gives some articles by someone with the same name on polymers. Not particularly relevant material, I think.

My mistake, I think the edition I read might have had a forward by druyan and wires crossed - but, yeah.  I enjoyed that one. It's certainly not the thing you want if (as I suspect you might) you were looking for something like hardcore analytic philosophy. There are peer reviewed journal for that - but - flat out, physics and the metaphysics of contemporary physics quickly spirals out of my ao and I spend alot more time on things that are relevant to me in ag and marketing.

[brewer]

I went to the corner philosopher store and asked for the philosophy of steam cleaning my carpet. They told me to piss off. I argued that AF tells me there is a philosophy for everything. They pointed at the door.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is a philosophy of steam cleaning your carpet, in fact, the philosophy that your carpet should be steam cleaned lead to the invention of the devices you use to steam clean your carpet today. It's a fascinating story.

Does your carpet need to be steam cleaned? In a word, no. As others have noted, as you yourself may suspect, philosophy can go far beyond any practical necessity or dry recitation of the facts of a matter. If cleanliness is virtue-making, and virtue-making is a compelling motivation to consumer activity, and consumer activity is a sufficient justification for industrial production on it's own.....

Combining this with Poly's concerns from before, with regards to alien species - they might notice that sterility (real or perceived) is the value making property. They could...as biological creatures, understand why biological sterility was important to a biological creature like us. Our ethics with regard to cleanliness and a possible need for steam cleaners would be explicable to them, and conceivable to them. They may not agree. They may be able to mount an evidentiary case that we're fucking nuts even by our own standards.....but that would be a demonstration that our normative statements are truth apt.

[polymath257]

I strongly disagree here. Scientists also do this. 

Yes, scientists also do this, and the 'this"... is philosophy.  Not all philosophers do science, all scientists do philosophy.  

Frankly, that's silly. it is an over-reach of philosophy into subjects it really isn't about.

Philosophy, on the other hand, tends to ignore the objective evidence and use premises that may or may not be sound.

This is what we might think philosophy does, but it may not be based on any actual state of affairs in contemporary philosophy.  There is no form of any objectivist philosophy that does this, for example, and...again, realism is the majority position of contemporary philosophy.  Not just in ethics, everywhere.  

No, Science is far more than simply inductive inference. it is the commitment to *test* all ideas with observation. That is the crucial step that helps reduce the effect of confirmation bias.

The step of doing inductive inference is the stage of generating *hypotheses*. That is not the end. it is the beginning. Those hypotheses need to be tested and retested and pushed to their breaking point in a determined way. That is where the confidence that they are valid comes from.

-and philosophy is also more than inductive inference.  Thing is, there's no territorial dispute here.  There's no knowledge peen measuring contest.  Philosophy alone is incapable of providing us with sound premises.  That's not what it's good at, but that's already baked in.  GIGO, right?  On the other hand, a person cannot do science, cannot even describe what science is...without explicating some philosophy.  There's nothing wrong with that.  The philosophical underpinnings of science have proven themselves over and over again.  The ability of science, in it's own right, to sharpen our philosophy is..likewise, not in doubt.

I saw a book with that title by a journalist, K. C. Cole. Google scholar gives some articles by someone with the same name on polymers. Not particularly relevant material, I think.

My mistake, I think the edition I read might have had a forward by druyan and wires crossed - but, yeah.  I enjoyed that one.  It's certainly not the thing you want if (as I suspect you might) you were looking for something like hardcore analytic philosophy.  There are peer reviewed journal for that - but - flat out, physics and the metaphysics of contemporary physics quickly spirals out of my ao and I spend alot more time on things that are relevant to me in ag and marketing.

Even a pointer to a name would be helpful.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To the OP: asking about value, i.e. the worthiness of philosophy as a field of study, is by definition a philosophical question. As such, to ask the question is to affirm the conclusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Frankly, that's silly. it is an over-reach of philosophy into subjects it really isn't about.

Philosophy, by it's nature..and by definition, is "about" anything.  Anything you can think about, philosophy is about that.  But, lets put a pin in that.  Tell me how, in your mind, scientists aren't doing philosophy.  

Even a pointer to a name would be helpful.

................?  The KC Cole book, good book...but, if you wanted to, rather than making blankent statements about philosophy in ignorance, you could just google the journals. I know you have the internet.

We've reached the point where I don't think that you're competently arguing your point anymore, you're incompetently asking me for references. Those references were there, and available to you, before the conversation began.

Philosophy is not what you think it is. Most Philosophers™ aren't doing the Bad Thing™ you think they are. Your objections have been addressed directly and at length, examples that evade those objections have been offered. You need a reset.

You are wrong. Full stop.

[Belacqua]

To the OP: asking about value, i.e. the worthiness of philosophy as a field of study, is by definition a philosophical question. As such, to ask the question is to affirm the conclusion.

This is why the endless back-and-forth about whether philosophy assists modern science is nowhere near the heart of the matter. It only seems important to certain monomathic people because they have decided a priori that since only scientific inquiry is worthwhile, only those things which serve science are good. 

But questions of values, ethics, aesthetics, and other fields not approachable by science are obviously philosophy, and obviously worthwhile.