The argument from morality is scary.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

Philosophy is dead, it is mere mental masterbation. There is no need for philosophy when you have REAL tools to measure the world around us.
...

Is that your philosophy?

[Brian37]

...

Philosophy is dead, it is mere mental masterbation. There is no need for philosophy when you have REAL tools to measure the world around us.
...

Is that your philosophy?

I was not born when scientific method was established. There is a difference between an "Idea" and a "tool". Philosophies are everything from politics to religion to personal wishes, those are not tools, just personal likes.

Scientific method is a tool. It goes way beyond personal likes. It is a tool that allows conformation of data and falsification of data.

Owning other humans was an accepted "philosophy". "Worship the state" is the philosophy of North Korea. They might work out for the powers that be but suck as "philosophies" for those who don't have the power.

Again, if you want to know why I hate that word and why life is merely part of a universal evolution we all are a part of "The New Atheism", explains quite well why we don't need the word "philosophy".

We are all entitled to our own opinions "philosophies" but we are not entitled to our own facts. Science is the only universal tool we know can be used to settle differences in our perceptions of the world around us. Philosophy is merely our personal predilections, no different than religion or politics.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

That's a very interesting philosophy. What do you call it?

[Brian37]

That's a very interesting philosophy. What do you call it?

Scientific method is a tool, not a philosophy, get over it. You can have any "philosophy" you want, but do not pretend it can be, or should be placed in the same category as a tool. One is a personal like, and the other is a tool.

I hate "philosophy" because it allows people to get married to it. Scientific method requires you to kick the tires and insure quality of data. Philosophy is the same naked assertion category as religion and politics.

You want to use an outdated archaic word, be my guest, but the computer you are typing on is not the result of a mere "philosophy". Some people actually got off their asses and tinkered with shit and studied shit to put you in the position of having a computer to type on.

"Philosophy" has the same stupid dangerous divisive baggage religion and politics do. It is nothing but another childish way of saying "I like it so I will go with it because it feels right".

In "The Greatest Show On Earth" By Richard Dawkins he explains why Plato is the most responsible for fucking up history of human use of reason and logic and it is precisely because of Plato's "philosophy" of "if you just think about something you can find it's "essence". Plato was NOT, contrary to popular belief, advocating questioning in any pragmatic sense. The place where Plato fucked up with his "philosophy" was that he didn't have any clue what quality control was or how important it is now that we have modern scientific method which he did not have back then.


Plato poisoned humanity because he didn't understand that merely having a "philosophy" which is what his "philosophy of essence" was, did not have any quality control parameters.

That horrible "philosophy" became the building block of all sorts of credulity that humans used in politics and religion, the "philosophy" of "just think about it". THAT is why I hate that word and wish people would stop using it.

A very simple thing to say is "I have this thing I like, so I go with it", and leave it at that. But "philosophy" falsely conflates it to some stupid woo level on par with religion and politics.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Oh man, this is too funny.

Philosophy is inescapable . Every single sentence you wrote is a reflection of your philosophy.

[Brian37]

Just the opposite, that is what god believers do.

Snarfwidget(assumption)<=1+potato

Good logic works like this.

1. Collect data through established standards
2. Plug data into established formulas through established methods.
3. Compare data to control groups to insure quality of data.
4. Hand data over to independent peer review to have your work verified or rejected. If verified, build upon it. If rejected, start over and discard bad data and or method.

Deity belief does not have that rigid standard.

Make shit up<=retrofit to suit your personal desires

Funny how none of the fans of any invisible pet deity have managed to beat everyone to the patent office or win a Nobel Prize in science with their "invisible sky daddy theory".

"god/s/deities/sky daddies" are a gibberish childish fantasy. It was when the Ancient Egyptians falsely thought the sun was a god, and you are not doing anything differently than they did in falling for your mental placebo.

It made sense that people made up gods when they didn't know better. But when people do that today it's like someone believing in Santa when they are 70 years old. You look silly to us. Just like it was silly for the Egyptians to believe the sun was a thinking deity. They had an excuse because they didn't know better, you have no excuse.

you got to "Deity belief does not have that rigid standard." and then your medication ran out but I will respond to your points till then. Yes the scientific method works very well when applied to the tangible universe but not applicable in the field of philosophy which deals with intangible things (religion is a philosophy).

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." Cor 1:25

Wow, you can quote the Bible. Big deal. Muslims quote the Koran but you are not a Muslim. That's called self serving, and quite frankly narcissistic, "Circular reasoning".

So If I like Harry Potter and quote Harry Potter books that means little boys can fly around on brooms? Funny how we drive cars and don't fly around on brooms.

[Mark 13:13]

Wow, you can quote the Bible. Big deal. Muslims quote the Koran but you are not a Muslim. That's called self serving, and quite frankly narcissistic, "Circular reasoning".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Circular reasoning and the problem of induction

Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically

[Brian37]

Oh man, this is too funny.

Philosophy is inescapable . Every single sentence you wrote is a reflection of your philosophy.

I am a product of my life experiences, that include multiple factors. I am not the product of a stupid word. I am a product of evolution. That is the bare bones fact and since evolution cannot be relegated to a philosophy because it is a SCIENCE above philosophy, there is no need to use such an archaic word.

I am a product of my upbringing, both the good and bad that went with it. I am a product of my education. And I am also a product of my genetics. That is called evolution. And fields like psychiatry and neurobiology are way better suited to study why people do what they do and how our bodies actually tick, not some stupid word that can be applied to non scientific things like religion and politics. Those things are merely our personal predilections as a species, both as individuals and or as groups.

"Philosophy" is simply a woo way of saying "personal predilections".

I have "personal predilections" and most certainly I think my "position" is a better position to hold, but "philosophy" does not insure nor require any quality control or outside independent review.

I simply use different words to describe my leanings and positions. I simply despise that word and see no use for it since we have had solid science for quite some time now.

I would be comfortable with the words "point of view" or simple language like "the way I see it", but I hate the word "philosophy" because it teaches people to get married to it like a religion or political party.

Now your next question instead of "SEE SEE SEE YOU DO HAVE A PHILOSOPHY" skip that damned word and ask me "Ok Brian what leads you in to this conclusion".

And my response is evolution. Which is a science, not a philosophy.

We can and do study the reasons people hold irrational beliefs. Dawkins calls god belief akin to "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". Our perceptions of reality can be, and are far too many times flawed.

Because we are not mostly scientifically literate, to understand even simple things like why we see a butterfly in the ink blot. Add to that maybe child abuse or mental illness or PTSD in war, and those REAL observable things add to both your input and reaction to input.

It is simple fight vs flight, nature vs nurture(genes and mental stress or illness) and what kind of both positive and negative input we get under our conditions over long periods of times under constantly changing conditions.

Those are observable things, not merely our personal predilections.

[Cato]

Brian,
Fight vs. flight, nature vs. nurture, positive vs. negative. You attempt to digest things until you can bean count, and then choose the side that has more beans.

Science allows us to build a nuclear warhead, science allows us to place the warhead over a city half the world away, science allows us to detonate it from afar, and science enables us to predict what type of destruction we can expect.

Science provides all this, yet is incapable of determining whether or not the technology should be used. You can agree. You can disagree. Either way, you are using philosophy at this point; it's unavoidable.

TEGH made the observation in another thread; despite your disdain for the word 'philosophy', you use philosophical arguments to deny its use. Regardless of your conviction in this matter, the joke is on you.