What's the point of philosophy any more?

[The Grand Nudger]

As vulcan pointed out..the scientific method -is- philosophy. The entire point of the method is to generate sound propositions. It has no other use. It doesn't do anything else. As Tilda likes to remind us..philosophy is a GIGO thing. Science is a method for sniffing out garbage..more than anything else. No amount of experiments will ever prove any given conclusion based upon propositions x y or z is sound..but it only takes one to wreck it.

[polymath257]

Not completely true. For example, ethics is a subject that is still primarily philosophical. And it is a useful and important subject.

In what context? As far as social interaction outside a lab sure, but as far as finding answers to scientific fact, observation, data collecting, control groups and peer review are still the top tool.

Psychology, psychiatry and neurology are the best way to study how humans behave.

That may describe how people react in practice, but doens't address the questions of how they 'should' react. It can address the questions of what people 'believe' to be ethical, but there is a still the question of whether ethics is independent of such beliefs.

[The Grand Nudger]

The premise of moral realism, the majority position in the philosophy of ethics.....is that true ethical propositions are independent of belief and could be derived from empirical observation.

[notimportant1234]

Not completely true. For example, ethics is a subject that is still primarily philosophical. And it is a useful and important subject.

In what context? As far as social interaction outside a lab sure, but as far as finding answers to scientific fact, observation, data collecting, control groups and peer review are still the top tool.

Psychology, psychiatry and neurology are the best way to study how humans behave.

Maybe in the future , at the moment most of them just like to point out who is fucked and who is not.
So much potential to this fields and a lot of it is just left there, untouched.

[Mystic]

You can't expect everyone to get 100% on an exam, no matter how well the professor taught the course, and no matter how good the students are.

I think the biggest problem is humans make too big small issues and small differences.

I don't see much disputes between deep thinkers in what they conclude and they just articulate or describe the same proof from different angles, as the foundational proof they rely on though they may not all know it encompasses really all proofs, and can be phrased in so many ways and has many ways of being expressed.

OK, I am getting dangerously close to talking about......... umm...won't do it.

*breathes*

*relaxes*

*smiles on the willful ways of the ignorant*

[The Grand Nudger]

*smiles on the willful ways of the ignorant*

.....lol, no..no don't self censor..tell us more about the muslims.   

[RoadRunner79]

You can't expect everyone to get 100% on an exam, no matter how well the professor taught the course, and no matter how good the students are.

I think the biggest problem is humans make too big small issues and small differences.

I don't see much disputes between deep thinkers in what they conclude and they just articulate or describe the same proof from different angles, as the foundational proof they rely on though they may not all know it encompasses really all proofs, and can be phrased in so many ways and has many ways of being expressed.

OK, I am getting dangerously close to talking about......... umm...won't do it.

*breathes*

*relaxes*

*smiles on the willful ways of the ignorant*

I would agree at times, I've been in and seen, some heated arguments, that when you get down to it, both are talking about the same thing, but making incorrect assumptions about the others choice of language.

[Mystic]

*smiles on the willful ways of the ignorant*

.....lol, no..no don't self censor..tell us more about the muslims.   

HAHA, got to be disciplined. The other day, there was Islamic Awareness Event, and they kept insisting I ask questions, but I refused lol.   I'm even trying to discipline myself in real life to not get into dialogue that is not beneficial.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why do we still need art or music as a field? Because we enjoy it?

In all seriousness, when we have physicists like Lawrence Krauss who ask the same question but then embarrass themselves by saying the universe came from "nothing", then we know why we need philosophy as a field.

And when you see philosophy done well, then you see why we need philosophy as field.

And personally I find philosophy more interesting than science. Science gets us technology but as a subject I find it much less interesting and much more limited. And when you see people who think science is more objective and has more power than it actually does, then once again you see why we need philosophy as a field.

When Popper as a philosopher of science came up with falsifiability then you see why we need philosophy as field.

And, furthermore, people like Lawrence are often criticizing philosophy when ironically some of the questions they find most interesting are actually philosophical.

Last but not least "What's the point of philosophy anymore?" is a philosophical question... making your very question self-defeating

And it's no surprise Polymath kudosed you, when that guy appears to be one of those people who thinks science has a lot more power than it actually has.

---

Seems like you are asking a lot of philosophical questions!

Would that then be meta-philosophy?

Yes.... which is part of philosophy.

if you have to ask then no wonder you're asking Methinks you need to learn more philosophy!

---

I have, at least in recent times, viewed philosophy as giving the framework in which physical sciences works in. Dunno where to place mathematics in this, mathematics (particularly formal logic) seems to be the tool for applying science.

Mathematics is logic with numbers.... and logic and reason is what philosophy is all about.

[Brian37]