(June 8, 2012 at 6:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: That implies stagnation. "ethics" change just like morals change, calling any of those things a "philosophy" like "less government" and "bigger government" have been "philosophies" have become dogmatic for those who support them.
"ethics" is a changing idea. If you treat something as something that is flowing instead of sedentary, you open yourself up to changing conditions which opens you up to possible answers in the future.
It was once "ethical" to own slaves. But if you call "ethics" a mere idea, guess what, we improved as a species by rejecting that "ethic" and thus "ethics" was open to change.
Yes, ethics and morals change, thereby becoming a different set of ethics and morals. Similarly philosophies change, which is why we have so many of them. The idea that it is sedentary and stagnant is only in your head.
(June 8, 2012 at 6:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: Let me meet you half way on this. I UNDERSTAND why the words are used. The problem is that while scientists use the past to influence their paths forward, you are still dealing with humans, not robots.
This sentence makes no sense.
(June 8, 2012 at 6:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: What you call "philosophy" I would rather put it this way.
I stick by my IDEA that Scientific method is a TOOL not a philosophy because scientists can have different ideas of how to use that tool to gain data which is METHODOLOGY.
Scientists have ideas of what is the best METHODOLOGY will lead them to the most accurate data, which leads to the fields of "ethics".
In science I like the usage of METHODOLOGY rather than Philosophy. you can have different "ideas" or as you would say "philosophies" as to how to get data. I call that methodology, not philosophy.
"Philosophy" as a word is to me to damned dogmatic and has the baggage of worship like religion. If we are open to change which we all should be, we should use TOOLS, not "philosophies".
Then clearly you don't understand what philosophy means since it is not a methodology to begin with. You keep saying "in science" and what scientists do, but fail to realize that without a strong philosophical basis, science wouldn't exist. All the baggage and dogmatism you talk about is your imagination.
(June 8, 2012 at 6:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: Plato's "Philosophy" of "essence" had no credible standard, so calling something a "philosophy" is meaningless. If he had the modern TOOL of methodology, he would have been able to understand how wrong he was.
You do realize that there are many more philosophers than Plato, right? And that that are many more philosophies? That's like saying "since creation science is bullshit, we should give up all science".
(June 8, 2012 at 6:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: Read the preface of "The Greatest Show on Earth". Dawkins blames much of the dogmatism on plato because of that "philosophy". To say that scientists cannot get dogmatic is absurd, lots of junk science and bad science stems from that mentality of treating something as if it should be worshiped.
I see the problem now. You have this ridiculous idea that whatever Plato says is philosophy and the field in its entirety is his product. You are wrong. If you consider Plato's philosophy to be bullshit (which I do as well), the reject it. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what philosophy itself is.