The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Jackalope]

Whether you acknowledge it or not, you most likely have your own philosophy on moral ethics and how you treat others.

Indeed. Furthermore, we all use elements of philosophy in ways that we might not realize.

What do I believe? Why do I believe it? Is my belief justified? How so? What are my values?

Those are just a few questions that fall under the discipline of philosophy. Epistemology, logic, metaphysics, morality, politics... all are deeply rooted in philosophy, as are law, religion, and science.

While some of philosophy might seem to some as pointless navel grazing, having an appreciation for aspects of philosophy that differ from one's own can lead to a better understanding of why they believe what they do. That is, in my view, is of great value.

[Tempus]

Just as bad / pseudo science is separated from good science by performing experiments using thorough testing methods to account for bias, equipment errors, etc, so too is bad / pseudo philosophy separated from good philosophy with careful examination. That is to say, science is done to prove other scientific findings incorrect and philosophy is done in a likewise manner.

Homeopathy, quantum healing, crystal healing, prayer, etc have all been associated with the terms medicine / health before. Should we therefore ditch the term "health" because of the unpleasant associations it has or because people might become attached to certain ideas about health? Homeopathic remedies are sometimes sold in the same stores as actual medicine. To avoid the association we could develop a phrase to replace health, such as: "practices, remedies and lifestyles which are conducive to promoting physical and psychological well-being". I would venture to say the reason we don't change the names of fields the moment they get associated with unpleasant things is because it makes more sense to address the problem (in this case homeopathic remedies) than to accomodate the problem by changing the name of the field it sometimes gets associated with. In this example the findings in the field(s) of medicine / health / biology would actually be used to expose homeopathy for the pseudo-science it is. Of course, to a layperson it may be difficult to distinguish between good science and bad science - it is the same for philosophy. The solution is education. We need to explain to people why this aspect of science or philosophy is better than the pseudo-science / philosophy opposed to it - not change / remove words.

I've explained above why I think changing / removing the word philosophy is a bad idea, but for the sake of argument, let's look at the implications of it being a good idea. Your criticism doesn't just apply to philosophy, but equally well to science in general, in addition to other subjects such as literature. You haven't explained why you don't demand the same things in those cases.

Yes. Philosophies come and go and can be held onto regardless of if they are shit or not. People make claims in the form of "ideas" and that is a much less complicated word and does NOT have the dogmatism of "philosophy", thus people are LESS likely to cling to it if it is a mere idea.

An assertion - back it up. Maybe people would become less attached to ideologies if they didn't have simple names to go by. I'll just note here that practising philosophy and practising a philosophy are two different things; I partially elaborate on this point further below. Trying to get people to refer to fields / practices / complex ideas, by expressing them longhand doesn't at all seem practical to me. Complex ideas are reduced to smaller words to express said ideas quickly. If you spelled out everything you meant to say you'd be there all day*. When you encounter an unfamiliar term, it makes more sense to learn that term, rather than complain that it exists. Once again, this criticism is applicable to almost any term.

*An absurd example below for my own amusement. As I've noted already there are more relevant examples such as health / medicine.
Person X: "Hey, let's go to the movies!"
Person Y: "The movies? Oh, you mean the theatre where the illusion of a moving image is achieved by projecting frames of film flitting past a light quickly onto a big screen from a high place at the back?"

Another assertion was that science is a tool. The scientific method is a tool, yes. "Science" can also refer to the general results of science (as discovered by the scientific method). Similarly, philosophy has methods / tools used to produce results, but "philosophy" can also be used similar to the term "theory" in science. That is to say, the words science and philosophy can both refer to the tools / methods / practices, as well as the results. In regards to philosophy, you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that it also has tools to produce its results. You only look at the results, rather than how they were attained and then assert it's tantamount to guesswork. Well, yeah, it'll look like guesswork if you're ignorant to how the conclusions are reached. So will science if you're ignorant of the usage of the scientific method.

Also, "philosophy" being a "stupid archaic word" isn't a criticism. To my knowledge, the word "logic" also comes from the same place and period.

---

I'm still not satisfied I was clear enough with the distinctions between usage of the word philosophy. At the risk of being tedious I'll try again:

Philosophy: an umbrella term referring to areas including - but not limited to - epistemology, logic, ethics. Comparable to the term "science" as it relates to physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
A philosophy: a specific worldview explaining (or seeking to explain) why/how things are the way they are and/or framework to live by, possibly (but not necessarily) dictating "shoulds". Somewhat comparable to a scientific "theory" (though an imperfect comparison), and possibly the term "ideology".

I welcome anyone more knowledgeable than I to challenge these definitions. I'm not entirely sure the latter one is very good...

[genkaus]

When you say "idea" people are less likely to get married to an "idea" no one should be married to an "idea". Philosophies are something people tend to get married to and worship and much harder to break them out of.

The "idea" of avoiding the word "philosophy" is to reduce dogmatism. People are more willing to question a mere idea. Far too many people have "philosophies" they demand respect for.

When you say idea, people are likely to understand that you are referring to to a single one.

When you say "ideas" people would expect many of them, but there would be no restrictions for them being connected, consistent and interdependent.

When you say philosophy, people understand that it has to be a set of consistent and connected ideas regarding specific questions.

It would seem that what Rand said about your philosophy is true after all - a bunch of ideas thrown together without regard for consistency.

[Brian37]

When you say "idea" people are less likely to get married to an "idea" no one should be married to an "idea". Philosophies are something people tend to get married to and worship and much harder to break them out of.

The "idea" of avoiding the word "philosophy" is to reduce dogmatism. People are more willing to question a mere idea. Far too many people have "philosophies" they demand respect for.

When you say idea, people are likely to understand that you are referring to to a single one.

When you say "ideas" people would expect many of them, but there would be no restrictions for them being connected, consistent and interdependent.

When you say philosophy, people understand that it has to be a set of consistent and connected ideas regarding specific questions.

It would seem that what Rand said about your philosophy is true after all - a bunch of ideas thrown together without regard for consistency.

When you say "ideas" people would expect many of them, but there would be no restrictions for them being connected, consistent and interdependent.

BINGO!

So if you call it an idea, people wont get married to it. But when you call it a philosophy, people cherry pick the connections and consistencies interdependency.

t would seem that what Rand said about your philosophy is true after all - a bunch of ideas thrown together without regard for consistency.

Rand had her head up her ass.

Now, think for a second. When you have competing claims how do we settle those competing claims?

Using the word "philosophy" is SUBJECTIVE, it is used in politics and religion as well so it IS only a subjective word and cannot be universally applied.

Ideas though, can be put through the universal tool of scientific method. The personal ideas or "Philosophies" of the scientists does not make the tool of method itself a mere "philosophy" it is a tool THAT WE USE TO FIND CONSISTENCIES.

If you are an ethical scientist, you don't want or should not want your ideas given taboo status. The ethical person wants the shit kicked out of their claims and put through the rigors of the TOOL of method to FIND THE CONSISTENCIES.

[genkaus]

BINGO!

So if you call it an idea, people wont get married to it. But when you call it a philosophy, people cherry pick the connections and consistencies interdependency.

Its the other way around. Calling it an idea (or a collection of ideas) allows people to do the cherry-picking. Philosophy is to taken as a consistent whole.

Rand had her head up her ass.

What a brilliant argument.

Now, think for a second. When you have competing claims how do we settle those competing claims?

By determining which one is more logical or rational.

Using the word "philosophy" is SUBJECTIVE, it is used in politics and religion as well so it IS only a subjective word and cannot be universally applied.

Applicability to many things does not make it subjective. Philosophy is the study of nature of things and those things might be religion, politics and science. Thus we have political philosophy, philosophy or religion and yes, philosophy of science as well.

Ideas though, can be put through the universal tool of scientific method. The personal ideas or "Philosophies" of the scientists does not make the tool of method itself a mere "philosophy" it is a tool THAT WE USE TO FIND CONSISTENCIES.

Not all ideas are subject to examination by the scientific method. And you simply display ignorance of meaning of the word if you equate personal ideas of scientists to a philosophy.

If you are an ethical scientist, you don't want or should not want your ideas given taboo status. The ethical person wants the shit kicked out of their claims and put through the rigors of the TOOL of method to FIND THE CONSISTENCIES.

For anyone to be an ethical anything, philosophy is required, since ethics is a branch of philosophy.

[Brian37]

BINGO!

So if you call it an idea, people wont get married to it. But when you call it a philosophy, people cherry pick the connections and consistencies interdependency.

Its the other way around. Calling it an idea (or a collection of ideas) allows people to do the cherry-picking. Philosophy is to taken as a consistent whole.

Rand had her head up her ass.

What a brilliant argument.

Now, think for a second. When you have competing claims how do we settle those competing claims?

By determining which one is more logical or rational.

Using the word "philosophy" is SUBJECTIVE, it is used in politics and religion as well so it IS only a subjective word and cannot be universally applied.

Applicability to many things does not make it subjective. Philosophy is the study of nature of things and those things might be religion, politics and science. Thus we have political philosophy, philosophy or religion and yes, philosophy of science as well.

Ideas though, can be put through the universal tool of scientific method. The personal ideas or "Philosophies" of the scientists does not make the tool of method itself a mere "philosophy" it is a tool THAT WE USE TO FIND CONSISTENCIES.

Not all ideas are subject to examination by the scientific method. And you simply display ignorance of meaning of the word if you equate personal ideas of scientists to a philosophy.

If you are an ethical scientist, you don't want or should not want your ideas given taboo status. The ethical person wants the shit kicked out of their claims and put through the rigors of the TOOL of method to FIND THE CONSISTENCIES.

For anyone to be an ethical anything, philosophy is required, since ethics is a branch of philosophy.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

[Tempus]

You know what? I think the cruellest way I can sate my wrath is to let you wallow in your own ignorance. That is, unless you can actually address the points raised rather than reiterate the same line over and over as though none have acknowledged it.

[genkaus]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Words have meaning by the consensus of those who use them. If you assign your own private meanings to them then cookies foam the time of sense nail horses.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or, "god" eh Chad?