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.
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.
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.
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.
(June 7, 2012 at 8:06 am)Brian37 Wrote:(June 6, 2012 at 11:13 am)Tempus Wrote:
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.
(June 7, 2012 at 8:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: 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.
(June 7, 2012 at 8:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: 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.
