How much do you like philosophy?

[MindForgedManacle]

I coined the "mental masturbation" phrase. I'm sticking with it.

Philosophy is a mechanism for speaking endlessly about nothing.

Can't get any less correct than that. Unless you're going to say that the topics of truth, knowledge, morality, politics, mind, language and metaphysics are "nothing".

I don't understand philosophy. I took a logic test that TEGH shared here once and scored nearly perfect on it, so I guess I can't suck that bad. But when I talk to people about philosophy, they say things I do not understand. And I don't know why they do that. When people ask me about science I always explain it in laymen terms and make sure I cut out the technical stuff, unless I'm talking to my classmates. But every time I talk to someone about philosophy, can't go beyond like 5 sentences before I have to ask for definitions :/. So yea, I'm not interested in it, plus you can never prove if you're right or wrong in philosophy, you don't experiment, it's all in your head.

If you were less familiar with science, you'd run into the exact same problem. Asking for definitions of words being used isn't a problem, so that's no more an obstacle in philosophy than any other discipline.

Actually science functions by having people make hypothesis logically and then checking if they're real. Philosophy stops right before the checking. What's the point? I can certainly make up theories that are logically sound, but if I cannot test it out, it contributes nothing.

That's both conceptually flawed and empirically false. Science surely has aspects of "hypothesizing and investigating", bit that's certainly not all of it. There are assumptions, postulations of unobservables to explain data and abstract theoretical speculations far in extent of what can be found at that time (think the Big Bang singularity).

And what do you mean philosophy stops without checking? Have you ever read Ethical philosophy or epistemology, or any bit of philosophical literature? That's complete baloney, unless you count logical deductions and theory-building (also a part of science, I should add) "stopping before checking".

For me philosophy is simply a way of forming interesting questions. Science is what actually answers them.

Do you really think philosophical has never answered questions and just stops at inforimg them? I mean come on man. :/

---

Clearly, I've shown where I lay. I like philosophy because it's often about conceptual investigation and clarification. It's so varied and it shows how a lot of people don't necessarily know exactly what they're talking about many of the time. Got me interested and I made it my second major.

[Ryantology]

So yea, I'm not interested in it, plus you can never prove if you're right or wrong in philosophy, you don't experiment, it's all in your head.

And that is the main reason why a lot of people don't like philosophy.

They only like talking about the concrete stuff because they can see those things happening right in front of their eyes ...




like how babies learn.

Nobody learns as much information with such speed as we did when we were infants.

[Minimalist]

Can't get any less correct than that. Unless you're going to say that the topics of truth, knowledge, morality, politics, mind, language and metaphysics are "nothing".

Define them, explain them, make predictions based on your results...except politics...that's hopeless. When you can you will have accomplished something....until then its nothing.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I don't understand philosophy. I took a logic test that TEGH shared here once and scored nearly perfect on it, so I guess I can't suck that bad. But when I talk to people about philosophy, they say things I do not understand. And I don't know why they do that. When people ask me about science I always explain it in laymen terms and make sure I cut out the technical stuff, unless I'm talking to my classmates. But every time I talk to someone about philosophy, can't go beyond like 5 sentences before I have to ask for definitions :/. So yea, I'm not interested in it, plus you can never prove if you're right or wrong in philosophy, you don't experiment, it's all in your head.

If you were less familiar with science, you'd run into the exact same problem. Asking for definitions of words being used isn't a problem, so that's no more an obstacle in philosophy than any other discipline.

Then philosophy people don't do a good job of public education. Which I'm sure you're aware is a huge enterprise in science.

Actually science functions by having people make hypothesis logically and then checking if they're real. Philosophy stops right before the checking. What's the point? I can certainly make up theories that are logically sound, but if I cannot test it out, it contributes nothing.

That's both conceptually flawed and empirically false. Science surely has aspects of "hypothesizing and investigating", bit that's certainly not all of it. There are assumptions, postulations of unobservables to explain data and abstract theoretical speculations far in extent of what can be found at that time (think the Big Bang singularity).

Yea we have all that but we don't stop there, if something by definition cannot be proven or tested, it's not good science. We may not be able to prove every theory now, but we have people working at it, we don't formulate theories without the intention of trying to check it.

And what do you mean philosophy stops without checking? Have you ever read Ethical philosophy or epistemology, or any bit of philosophical literature? That's complete baloney, unless you count logical deductions and theory-building (also a part of science, I should add) "stopping before checking".

No I haven't. Are philosophical theories made with the intention of experimentation?

[Angrboda]

Actually science functions by having people make hypothesis logically and then checking if they're real. Philosophy stops right before the checking. What's the point? I can certainly make up theories that are logically sound, but if I cannot test it out, it contributes nothing.

Please tell me the scientific experiment you would use to show that if you cannot test something, "it contributes nothing." Or did you just say something that itself contributes nothing? And how would you know? Surely we can test whether what you said contributes something, because if we can't, by your own admission, what you said contributes nothing.

[MindForgedManacle]

Define them, explain them, make predictions based on your results...except politics...that's hopeless. When you can you will have accomplished something....until then its nothing.

...What? Talking about making predictions based on concepts alone is a complete non sequitur. If I'm talking about the concept of truth, asking for a prediction of my investigation into the concept makes no sense. An investigation into whether or not the logic is valid/sound is more applicable.

Then philosophy people don't do a good job of public education. Which I'm sure you're aware is a huge enterprise in science.

...Did you read what I said? Asking for definitions is completely legit, and someone actually capable of giving them should do so. I can do so for philosophy, and my philosophy professors have been more than willing to do so, so I have no idea what you're saying here.

And worse, I can show what you said to be very questionable. How often do we have to explain what a 'theory' or 'law' is in science? Or what evolution is? Big Bang? Origin of life? Granted, SOME of the public misunderstanding is because of creationist deception (or ignorance), but scientists and science-popularizers themselves are also partly to blame in some of their explanations, wherein they aren't clear, to the layman, what they mean by what they say.

That's both conceptually flawed and empirically false. Science surely has aspects of "hypothesizing and investigating", bit that's certainly not all of it. There are assumptions, postulations of unobservables to explain data and abstract theoretical speculations far in extent of what can be found at that time (think the Big Bang singularity).

Yea we have all that but we don't stop there, if something by definition cannot be proven or tested, it's not good science. We may not be able to prove every theory now, but we have people working at it, we don't formulate theories without the intention of trying to check it.

What and you think philosophers just present theories with no intention of trying to check or prove them at all? This is so antithetical to any work of philosophy that I've read, from Plato on down, that's it blows my mind. Given that a large part of philosophy is trying to logically prove things, what you're implying is patently false.

No I haven't. Are philosophical theories made with the intention of experimentation?

Philosophical works are made with the intention of presenting a logically airtight case for or against some concept or position. Are some of those things amenable to empirical inquiry? Sure. All? No, and if you see this as a problem you've basically destroyed science's own foundation.

What do you hope to gain by setting up experimentation as the sole determinator of truth? In fact, present to me an experiment you would do to determine what "truth" itself is, and then you'll see why your question makes a self-refuting assumption (i.e it's basically what is known as "logical positivism", which I'm happy to explain if Google doesn't suffice for you).

[Rayaan]

Actually science functions by having people make hypothesis logically and then checking if they're real. Philosophy stops right before the checking. What's the point?

But there would be no such thing as a scientific method in the first place, nor any kind of interpretation, for that matter, if we didn't have philosophy.

Even when you're discussing the existence of God or about religion with theists on this forum - that is philosophy also.

Thus you wouldn't be able to refute any theists on this forum without using philosophy.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Actually science functions by having people make hypothesis logically and then checking if they're real. Philosophy stops right before the checking. What's the point? I can certainly make up theories that are logically sound, but if I cannot test it out, it contributes nothing.

Please tell me the scientific experiment you would use to show that if you cannot test something, "it contributes nothing." Or did you just say something that itself contributes nothing? And how would you know? Surely we can test whether what you said contributes something, because if we can't, by your own admission, what you said contributes nothing.

By that I mean you cannot disprove your null hypothesis or your hypothesis and you wouldn't know if your theory is right or wrong. So all you have is that theory or hypothesis but I do not see where you go from there. Not everything that is logical is true or real.

[Angrboda]

Actually science functions by having people make hypothesis logically and then checking if they're real. Philosophy stops right before the checking. What's the point? I can certainly make up theories that are logically sound, but if I cannot test it out, it contributes nothing.

Please tell me the scientific experiment you would use to show that if you cannot test something, "it contributes nothing." Or did you just say something that itself contributes nothing? And how would you know? Surely we can test whether what you said contributes something, because if we can't, by your own admission, what you said contributes nothing.

By that I mean you cannot disprove your null hypothesis or your hypothesis and you wouldn't know if your theory is right or wrong. So all you have is that theory or hypothesis but I do not see where you go from there. Not everything that is logical is true or real.

You didn't answer the question.

[MindForgedManacle]

But a null hypothesis isn't correct until proven otherwise, it's just what's assumed to be the case initially.