(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 People who think philosophy has somehow been replaced by science need to go and read a fucking dictionary...or maybe take a few college courses.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.
