Philosophy Versus Science

[Sheldon]

Yes, there are unquestionably all sorts of useful spinoffs from philosophy which, like science, are no longer accountable to philosophers.  I would include logic in that list.

Yeah, now you're just going through the list and declaring that everything YOU consider worthwhile and successful isn't philosophy, and everything you consider to be not worthwhile is philosophy. 

The same way you decided arbitrarily, and incorrectly what science can examine. 

The people who write the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy think that logic is a part of philosophy.

It takes less than a second to see that this is only true if philosophy adheres to the principles of logic. For example if one made an argument that used a known logical fallacy, like an "appeal to authority fallacy" for example, then that assertion would not be true, do I need to join the dots here? 
That same encyclopaedia has been cited by quite a few religious apologists trying to peddle a definition of atheism that is woefully out of date, and doesn't reflect common usage, for example. 

If you have an argument to explain why every field in philosophy has to be a failure by definition, while every field which is successful is not philosophy, you could argue for that, I guess.

You mean the way you disingenuously implied that technology is not directly resulting from scientific methodology? Or that science is limited to methodological naturalism, rather than there being nothing else for science to objectively examine.

[Sheldon]

To repeat (or summarize), my argument is that science, as a spin-off from philosophy, includes enough elements from philosophy as to no longer be accountable to philosophers.  Science has effectively become something else, largely because of its requirements for testing experiments and supporting evidence.

I also think there are other spin-off disciplines which may not be accountable to philosophers.  Those specializations, like science, are now in many ways too detailed and complex for philosophers to encompass.  For instance, much of philosophical moral thinking is now embedded in our detailed laws.  And scientists have all sorts of information and tools at their disposal for their work which most philosophers, unless they are also scientists, do not.  Still, historical philosophers deserve praise for their successes, their offspring disciplines.

I personally am only interested in science and its own embedded philosophical principles because those are the ones which have been most productive.  From that point of view, a lot of historical philosophy is now obsolete.  We have verifiable answers to many of its questions and speculations.

However, I don't want to over-generalize.  I do think that there are some spin-off disciplines, aside from science, which could use some philosophical tinkering.  It's when theists use philosophy to claim that science is off-track that I especially take exception.

This thread implies a false dichotomy, I think. 

No, if the thread implied we were limited only to those two choices, then it might, but they seem only to be asking which is the better method, though the question seems moot given the objectively measurable results of both methods.

[Sheldon]

People vote with their feet.  

Yeah, I don't want to say that popularity equals quality. 

However, I am likely wrong about this point.  People enjoy an expanded menu of experiences, but don't necessarily abandon the old.  It's difficult to say without more information.

The philosophy of art is a fascinating field, with a rich history. The answers to the questions I asked you will be very different if you listen to Aristotle, Michelangelo, Lessing, Joshua Reynolds, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, or Andre Breton. But these are not questions that can be addressed through scientific means.

Nor can one's favourite colour of course, perhaps for the same reason. 

Using a method that is designed to remove as much subjective bias as possible, in order to best objectively understand reality, to measure the "veracity" of subjective opinions is rather pointless. Like using a fine antique fountain pen to play darts, then complaining it's not suitable.

[Sheldon]

Studying philosophy does make people better thinkers, according to new research on more than 600,000 college grads

Using science to show philosophy has its use. Interesting

That title bothered me, and I couldn't tell why, then I saw that it should objectively say...

Studying philosophy does may make people better thinkers, according to new research on more than 600,000 college grads

Edit: I should have said "is more likely to" and not may, mea culpa maxima.

[Alan V]

Here are the last several paragraphs from Angrboda's linked article:

What still isn’t known
While our results point to real growth in students’ intellectual abilities and dispositions, they do not capture everything philosophers mean by “intellectual virtue.” Intellectual virtue is not just a matter of possessing certain abilities but of using those abilities well: at the right times, for the right reasons, and in the right ways.

Our measures do not tell us whether philosophy majors go on to apply their newfound abilities in the service of truth and justice or, conversely, for personal gain and glory. Settling that question would require gathering a different kind of evidence.

From Studying philosophy does make people better thinkers, according to new research on more than 600,000 college grads

She makes a good point that the reasoning tools of philosophy do help people think more clearly. That is why they are so commonly applied in other, spin-off areas of study. However, I still would not want to study the history of philosophy or otherwise be a philosophy major. IMO, either pursuit would make me less useful in certain ways.

[Sheldon]

Here are the last several paragraphs from Angrboda's linked article:

What still isn’t known
While our results point to real growth in students’ intellectual abilities and dispositions, they do not capture everything philosophers mean by “intellectual virtue.” Intellectual virtue is not just a matter of possessing certain abilities but of using those abilities well: at the right times, for the right reasons, and in the right ways.

Our measures do not tell us whether philosophy majors go on to apply their newfound abilities in the service of truth and justice or, conversely, for personal gain and glory. Settling that question would require gathering a different kind of evidence.

From Studying philosophy does make people better thinkers, according to new research on more than 600,000 college grads

She makes a good point that the reasoning tools of philosophy do help people think more clearly.  That is why they are so commonly applied in other, spin-off areas of study.  However, I still would not want to study the history of philosophy or otherwise be a philosophy major.  IMO, either pursuit would make me less useful in certain ways.

I must assume assume she means can help people think more clearly, and is more likely to help people think more clearly, lest we forget, William Lane Craig is a philosopher, apparently.

[Paleophyte]

A fascinating read. It's a paper in a non-reviewed journal penned by two philosophers extolling the virtues of philosophy. No discussion of any statistical treatment of the data is presented, in fact, you're left wondering what the data actually was. This is what they're fobbing off as evidence of philosophy being useful for anything? I give them an E for Effort.

[Sheldon]

A fascinating read. It's a paper in a non-reviewed journal penned by two philosophers extolling the virtues of philosophy. No discussion of any statistical treatment of the data is presented, in fact, you're left wondering what the data actually was. This is what they're fobbing off as evidence of philosophy being useful for anything? I give them an E for Effort.

I withdraw my edit in that case, and go back to "might help", which as we know is the same as "might not help".

"Philosophy majors rank higher than all other majors on verbal and logical reasoning, according to our new study published in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association."

It is actually a peer reviewed journal. 

That is to say peer reviewed by other philosophers. 

[Sheldon]

From a historical perspective, science developed within philosophy but spun off into its own discipline with its own methods.  So in my opinion, scientists are no longer accountable to philosophers because the available evidence supports scientific ideas instead.  Further, science has incorporated the most useful bits of philosophy into its own methods, so scientists can do their own philosophy when necessary to develop their hypotheses.

However I have heard arguments, especially from theists, claiming that science must still prove itself to philosophers.  They claim that science is necessarily tied to metaphysical naturalism and not just to methodological naturalism, so that it automatically excludes certain ideas and evidence.  These kinds of claims comprised a long back-and-forth in the Atheist Discussion forum.

So I was wondering what the people posting at Atheist Forums thought about this issue.

I think they now serve two entirely different purposes. With science tasked to objectively examine reality, and philosophy to subjectively question epistemological limits of human inquiry.

[arewethereyet]

A fascinating read. It's a paper in a non-reviewed journal penned by two philosophers extolling the virtues of philosophy. No discussion of any statistical treatment of the data is presented, in fact, you're left wondering what the data actually was. This is what they're fobbing off as evidence of philosophy being useful for anything? I give them an E for Effort.

I withdraw my edit in that case, and go back to "might help", which as we know is the same as "might not help".

"Philosophy majors rank higher than all other majors on verbal and logical reasoning, according to our new study published in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association."

It is actually a peer reviewed journal. 

That is to say peer reviewed by other philosophers. 

Philosophers say that those who study philosophy are smarter than people who don't.  Sounds legit.

How many philosophers can fit on the head of a pin?