How worthless is Philosophy?

[brewer]

If it floats your boat fine by me. However I doubt I spend much time on that water.

[Foxaèr]

If it floats your boat fine by me. However I doubt I spend much time on that water.

Good. Too much time in the tub leaves your already wrinkled skin even wrinklier.

[brewer]

If it floats your boat fine by me. However I doubt I spend much time on that water.

Good. Too much time in the tub leaves your already wrinkled skin even wrinklier.

I don't like creating a soup of my own filth.

[vulcanlogician]

A mistake, yes. A claim that we should be logical and scrutinize our possible mistakes. I think Plato had that part right. Taking Platonism as a whole is foolish.

But the denying of Plato's ideas wholesale is equally as foolish. He had good ideas. We both know it.

Absolutely.  Like I keep yammering about...I think that the likes of plato and laozi or their compilers spoke the most authoritatively on the subject of good government order as they saw it.  To be clear, some of the ideas or arguments I would call good ones are not even things I agree with - I admire the delivery, and the proof of their utility as governing philosophies of the mind or the mind of a nation would be in the pudding of the empires that were founded on their justifications and advice.

But you also gotta understand that Plato was a student of Socrates. Socrates said we should question all ideas. We should see what is true about them... but also test them for weaknesses, exposing any falsehoods we discover along the way. Understanding Plato without taking Socratic skepticism into account is a sure fire way to miss Plato's points.

Now there are several things that work against my arguments. In his later works, Plato became "less Socratic" and more certain of his own ideas. The Neoplatonists took this aspect of Plato and ran with it (but that's hardly Plato's fault!) I think that Neoplatonism is responsible for most of the distorted views we have of Plato in contemporary times. They forgot he was a skeptic! And that's a pretty important part of his overall thinking.

As for Laozi. IDK. I wouldn't put him anywhere near Plato-tier as far as philosophers go. But he was an interesting poet and had some insightful things to say. 

Anyone who accepts Laozi wholesale is a blithering idiot, sure. But so is someone who fails to recognize that Laozi had a few interesting things to say.

[Angrboda]

I resemble that remark.

[vulcanlogician]

I haven't read much Plato,

If you're ever in the mood to read one of his (smaller) books, I recommend The Symposium... Avi Sharon translation... Avi Sharon or don't bother reading it at all, unless your reading it in Greek.

but the question of how worthless philosophy is may be something I have some thoughts about.  When we're talking about how much something is worth, different standards may be at play, and often people use the most disadvantageous standard when talking about something they don't like.  This leads to rather biased assessments.  An assessment can come from a purely subjective standpoint, as in chocolate ice cream being worthless because I don't like chocolate ice cream.  Alternatively one can try rational justification which ultimately leads to subjective values, but ones which are more universal.

Yeah. I see your point. Flat earther's don't care about what causes the phases of the moon. They are more inclined to value theories about the phases of the moon that would support their theories. While scientists would be prone to ask "what causes the phases of the moon" and then select a theory which conforms to whatever it is they learn.

But who is to say which is better? Either way it seems, you are left with some kind of bias. A bias which is imposed on the whole purpose of the investigation from the outset. We can ask who is being more honest, though. And I bet you we could figure something out in that regard!

Commonly, it is compared to the instrumental utility of science.  

It may be that science is so damned useful because it provides us with correct information rather than bullshit. I don't think the utility of science is some nebulous concept that exists out there in a vacuum.

I think this is a bit misleading as science itself is pretty useless except insofar as its accuracy in describing reality can be instrumentally useful in the development of technology.  Knowing Einstein's theories alone is pretty inutile.  Turning that knowledge into GPS satellites on the other hand, useful.  I think this distinction is overlooked in criticizing philosophy.

Science doesn't need practical value or applications. Sure, Einstein helps satellites give us accurate GPS data. But Einstein built on Newton. And sure, Newton has given us numerous practical applications for his theories. But Newton built on Galileo. Galileo simply said the planets revolve around the sun. And there were pretty much no practical applications we could use for that. It's just real facts about our solar system. But that was the first step toward creating a functional GPS system. But I don't think Galileo, as brilliant as he was, saw that his observations would help us get GPS in the future.

I think he just wanted to understand the universe. And that's where it all begins. People who just want to understand things. There is really no other utility required.

Curmudgeons may complain about the uselessness of post-modernism, yet use logic to do it.

Guilty as charged.

Science fans may argue the uselessness of philosophy, yet be the first to turn around and make use of the concept of falsification in their arguments.  And nobody serious would consider the question of a TOE without thinking of Godel being in the background.  And quantum physics is overflowing with philosophical questions.  These indirect uses of philosophy get dismissed by philosophy's critics and overlooked by the ignorant.

Man, it's nice to see you again, Jorm. I don't spend as much time as I used to online, but it's nice to say "hi." And I hope I see you around.

[Angrboda]

It may be that science is so damned useful because it provides us with correct information rather than bullshit. I don't think the utility of science is some nebulous concept that exists out there in a vacuum.

Can you demonstrate the correctness of science independent of its instrumental utility? You seem to be suggesting it's correct regardless of utility.

[vulcanlogician]

It may be that science is so damned useful because it provides us with correct information rather than bullshit. I don't think the utility of science is some nebulous concept that exists out there in a vacuum.

Can you demonstrate the correctness of science independent of its instrumental utility?   You seem to be suggesting it's correct regardless of utility.

Well, rockets need to achieve a certain escape velocity in order to escape Earth's gravity well. So we would want to know that if we planned on launching rockets into space. But that is "utility knowledge" and is thus verboten for me to mention in arguing this certain point with you. Fine.

So let us suppose we DIDN'T want to launch a rocket from Earth? Would that change the escape velocity required?

Obviously, it wouldn't. 

And, as boneheaded and obvious as it is... that's my point.

[vulcanlogician]

@Angrboda

Feel free to say if my answer was dissatisfactory. Maybe I missed your point.

[Angrboda]

Science is useful because it makes correct predictions. Its utility and its correctness are inseparable. As to whether the causal story that science provides, its correctness is a deep question.

Some theists posit that the universe is regular and ordered because of the constant action of God. How do we divine whether that is correct versus appealing to invisible forces?