The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[genkaus]

I hate the word "philosophy".stuck in a rut, including a bad "philosophy".

You don't say?

In evolutionary terms, what is really going on is that we seek patterns, "philosophy" is merely a place card word to say, "when we do this it seems to work so lets go with it".

No its a place card for saying "what is it, why is it and what should be do with it and why should be do that".

The problem with the word is that it has the baggage of becoming sedentary and dogmatic.

You are thinking of religion.

A "philosophy" can be any claimed pattern a person thinks works. The problem is once they take on that "philosophy" they tend to project it on others.

We need to get rid of that word. It has too much baggage.

Brainstorming, having ideas, saying "this seems to work" are much better terms to work with because it is not attached to someone's personal idea of "this is the way things should go".

It frees us up to question and without question our species can get stuck in a rut, including a bad "philosophy".

Clearly, you hatred for philosophy comes from the fact that you don't understand what it is. It is simply the answer to the basic questions we ask ourselves about our existence, the world and our actions in it. "This is how it should be" is not a necessary part of philosophy unless it is one of the questions asked.

[Tempus]

Before I begin, I'll just mention I moved around bits of you what you said so I could better address individual points. I don't think I've distorted the meaning, but if I have let me know.

---

People's qualifications don't affect the validity of their points, on this we agree. Why even bring it up? Attempting to cut someone down by asserting they're not qualified, or that you're equally (or more) qualified than them doesn't bolster your argument.

As above: irrelevant. It seems you're presenting a form of ignoratio elenchi since this still isn't addressing the content of my initial quotation. You said we don't need philosophy. I responded - perhaps too obliquely - by countering that you do philosophy whether you realise it or not and that it is better you be cognisant of it rather than ignorant. Epistemology, logic, ethics, etc fall under philosophy. Would you say we don't need epistemology, logic, ethics?

ETA: Cthulhu paraphrased the quotation nicely also.

---

I hate the word "philosophy"... The problem with the word is that it has the baggage of becoming sedentary and dogmatic... We need to get rid of that word. It has too much baggage.

I agree the word "philosophy" has baggage. So does "atheist". You may have seen the following exchange before:

Person A: "I'm an atheist."
Person B: "You say there is no god."
Person A: "No, I don't believe in one..."
Person B: "But you're an atheist which means you assert there is no god!"

And so on. That's a rather subtle and innocuous example, but Person B's first reply could've been any of the following; "you have no morals", "you're angry at god", "you worship the devil", etc. Let's consider an even more relevant example though: science. There's stereotypes projected by some onto scientists, such as them being amoral, elitist, capricious "science is always changing it's mind!" etc. There's also "Christian Science", Scientology, quantum healing and the like. There's media that incompetently (or maybe dishonestly) reports the tentative findings of the scientific community as fact and then, later, when those initial findings turn out to be false who gets the blame? Scientists. Even though they often are cautious to say "hey, these are new findings, they still need to be confirmed". Occasionally there's just bad science, mistakes or confusion caused by pseudo-scientists or qualified scientists with an agenda or poor methodology. The words "theory" and "experiment" are often used loosely too. I know a lot of people who have "experimented" with working out / dieting, and have "theories" that help them when they gamble money. None of them would know what a confounding variable was if it bit them on the ass, but that's not a reason to change the words "experiment" or "theory" just because they have different colloquial usage. Lots of terms, including "science", carry baggage.

In evolutionary terms, what is really going on is that we seek patterns, "philosophy" is merely a place card word to say, "when we do this it seems to work so lets go with it"... A "philosophy" can be any claimed pattern a person thinks works. The problem is once they take on that "philosophy" they tend to project it on others.

People project their beliefs onto others with or without philosophy. Indeed, familiarising yourself with the subject of philosophy can inoculate against incorrect or poorly reasoned ideas. This ties in with my initial point of it being good to know about philosophy rather than do bad philosophy without being aware of it. A comparison might be someone who's doing bad science in an area covered by the natural sciences. It would be better if said individual researched the natural sciences and the methodology of it rather than if they didn't.

Brainstorming, having ideas, saying "this seems to work" are much better terms to work with because it is not attached to someone's personal idea of "this is the way things should go"... It frees us up to question and without question our species can get stuck in a rut, including a bad "philosophy".

Philosophy is used to aid questioning, as well as argumentation. If you get rid of the name another one will simply take it's place as label for the practices encompassed by it. Instead of "theory" in science you could say "this is the best explanation of the facts with the most predictive power", but it's easier to just say "theory". It's worth noting you've changed your position mid argument, whether intentionally or not. You were against philosophy, not the word "philosophy". "We don't need philosophy" and "the word philosophy carries baggage" are two different arguments.

[Brian37]

Again, the reason I hate that word is because of people like people like Plato who had the bad "philosophy" of "essence".

It is a stupid archaic word. We have the TOOL of scientific method which has surpassed merely brain farts.

[Anomalocaris]

It is a stupid archaic word. We have the TOOL of scientific method which has surpassed merely brain farts.

And you don't appear to have made use of many of them before making various outlandish assetions.

[Brian37]

It is a stupid archaic word. We have the TOOL of scientific method which has surpassed merely brain farts.

And you don't appear to have made use of many of them before making various outlandish assetions.

"Philosohpy" is not a science rooted word. It is merely "go with an idea".

Just scrap the damned word, we don't need it.

"Buddhist philosophy"
"Taoist philosophy"
"Plato's philosophy"
"Christian philosophy"
"Libertarian philosophy"

DO YOU NOT see the problem with that? It is an ambiguous word that anyone can use to suit their own needs.

Scientific method is not something you suit to your own needs, that is why it is called METHOD.

Method is what we use to TEST ideas. Philosophy is merely a brain fart. Method goes way beyond merely saying "I like what I came up with".

Just say "I have an idea". THEN be willing to use METHOD to test that idea. You don't need a "philosophy" you need a quality control mechanism which is what METHOD is. "Otherwise any "philosophy" is good enough to stick in a gap and no need for a method.

Idea based on prior data plus testing and falsification and independent peer review. METHOD AND TOOL

It is an archaic word we DONT need to use.

[Neo-Scholastic]

DO YOU NOT see the problem with that? It is an ambiguous word that anyone can use to suit their own needs....It is an archaic word we DONT need to use.

You have an interesting philosophy.

Did you understand that sentence?

[Brian37]

DO YOU NOT see the problem with that? It is an ambiguous word that anyone can use to suit their own needs....It is an archaic word we DONT need to use.

You have an interesting philosophy.

Did you understand that sentence?

No, I have the IDEA that we should NOT use that word. Can you understand that sentence? I am not claiming it to be dogmatic. "Philosophy" has the bullshit baggage of dogmatism.

"Philosophies" are sold and marketed. Ideas don't have to be sold, they have to be tested to be proven or debunked. Scientific method is NOT philosophy, it is a TOOL.

You must be loving this distraction considering the OP isn't about this. You want us to forget your bullshit OP.

[Jackalope]

You have an interesting philosophy.

Did you understand that sentence?

No, I have the IDEA that we should NOT use that word. Can you understand that sentence? I am not claiming it to be dogmatic. "Philosophy" has the bullshit baggage of dogmatism.

"Philosophies" are sold and marketed. Ideas don't have to be sold, they have to be tested to be proven or debunked. Scientific method is NOT philosophy, it is a TOOL.

You must be loving this distraction considering the OP isn't about this. You want us to forget your bullshit OP.

Do you realize that science and the scientific method method have deep roots in philosophy?

There exists bad philosophy. There also exists bad science.

While throwing out the bathwater, take care not to discard the baby as well.

[Anomalocaris]

No, I have the IDEA that we should NOT use that word. Can you understand that sentence? I am not claiming it to be dogmatic. "Philosophy" has the bullshit baggage of dogmatism.

"Philosophies" are sold and marketed. Ideas don't have to be sold, they have to be tested to be proven or debunked. Scientific method is NOT philosophy, it is a TOOL.

.......

1. Do you realize you use vocabulary for communicate with othersm and others' vocabulary choices do not revolve around you?

2. Do you realize that the notion that the "this TOOL is appropriate for use" is what normal people might consider to be a philosophy?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I think Brian37 is testing out an atheist version of Poe's law.