Science is a metaphysical party pooper.

Post Reply New Topic

I won't argue that AA is not a cult. But the medical model of disease can be applied to alcoholism if one likes, separate from AA, as it provides a partial explanation. The medical model is also free to change as additional research is conducted.

has anyone considered that the "tree falling in the woods" might be a metaphor for something else, which is why it is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one? obviously a scientific answer is easy to supply, but maybe that is not what the question is really asking for.....but then again, we are supposed to have trouble with taking things too literally, so i can see why so many have answered it from a literal, scientific standpoint.

Isnt the whole argument a bit pointless though? Whether or not a tree falling in a distant wood makes a sound, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your life. It may be interesting to think about in an abstract way if you have nothing else to do, and I agree that a small amount of skepticism about everything is useful, but why not spend time working out answers to more productive questions? If nothing does exist outside one's personal experience, there isnt much that one can do to change things - in the end you have to accept it and try to live as though you never found that out to start with (otherwise you will go insane).

The big issue I have with your comment is that no matter what troubling truth that is being addressed, it still holds, as if certain ideas are off-limits to question. In the end, we can exclude *anything* from inquiry by this principle, or at least a lot of things from inquiry, as after all, as a rule, most inquiries are useless, whether scientific, theological, philosophical, or otherwise. I mean, even with science, the posterboy of useful discoveries, a lot of research still is pretty useless.

The big issue I have with your comment is that no matter what troubling truth that is being addressed, it still holds, as if certain ideas are off-limits to question. In the end, we can exclude *anything* from inquiry by this principle, or at least a lot of things from inquiry, as after all, as a rule, most inquiries are useless, whether scientific, theological, philosophical, or otherwise. I mean, even with science, the posterboy of useful discoveries, a lot of research still is pretty useless.

You are missing the point. It isn't just about trees falling in woods. It is the very principle of what really happens in the world whether people are looking or not. As science de-mystifies things around us there is less room for magic, superstition and cosmic conjurers to hide. I'm sure the philosophers will continue to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for centuries to come, but at least the real world is being understood by science more each day.

do you feel that philosophy is irrelevant? i fail to see how it is any less relevant than the arts, for example, but perhaps you see the arts as irrelevant too?.....but i am an artist and an amateur philosopher so i guess that makes my opinion biased.

A part from that, a good question to ask would be, does one who feels philosophy to be irrelevant, does that mean they should have a good understanding of what it is, in order to consistently and logically invalidate it?

Last edited by greenblue on 22 Jan 2009, 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For thousands of years philosophers have pondered The Big Questions:

1. Free Will
2. How do we know what we know
3. Is reality real or is it an illusion
4. What is RIght and what is Wrong
and so on infinitum.

And for thousands of years no one has really given satisfactory answers to these questions.

On the other hand, the natural sciences do deliver not only answers but useful arts, applications and techniques. In short, science delivers and philosophy does not.

ruveyn

well i would hope that would be true of anything....how could you invalidate something without understanding it first? that would be prejudicial, wouldn't it?

but how can you quantify what pondering these questions philosophically achieves for the human soul? and notice i say ponder, and not answer, because i think sometimes the question and the seeking is more important than the answer itself. it's what you learn about yourself through asking those questions, not what you establish to be 'physically true' of the world outside yourself, that matters in that context. it is the journey, not the destination, that matters to the soul. does that count for anything? probably not if you can't stick a number or a unit of measurement to it, i guess. what a narrow view of life.

well, I'm not that sure about philosophy actually lacking of delivering something useful, things like logic, rationality, aesthetics and ethics, are examples known to be useful in many areas.


Yes, I agree, however, when it comes to practice, like how a society should live and how it should work, then the issues about free will, reality and ethics are assumed, the necessity of the assumptions is there in order for a society to function, although I think I'm going with the social/political aspect with this , and of course they can't escape from being fallible and never being answered satisfactorilly under severe analysis.

Last edited by greenblue on 22 Jan 2009, 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

and i want to add here.....i love science, and always have as far back as i can remember. had a huge collection of books about chemistry and biology as a child. since i was 11 i was convinced i was going to be a zoologist. i even went to university and loved the semester that i was able to finish before the social aspect of school became too much for me and i had to drop out. i took biology, chem and calculus that semester and i loved every minute of it intellectually. i appreciate what we can come to understand through the precision and pure beauty of science....but my perspective is not limited to view life through that lens only.

also, i went to college for two years for a humanities program, and tried to keep a good balance of course choices between the social sciences and the physical sciences. i took courses in literature, mythology, anatomy and physiology, chem, physics, and even gender and sexuality. i think that if i had stuck to the physical sciences alone i would have missed out on so much.

just wanted to show that i am not biased against the sciences. their importance cannot be measured, any more than philosophy's can. they are equally valid, in my mind, just for different reasons.

In fact my post was slightly tongue in cheek and I didnt miss the point at all - I am aware why people ask this type of question, and aware more than most people of the pointlessness of everything including my own research (which seems to have no impact on the public as a whole) and indeed everything else in the end.

I have become interested in philosophy quite a lot in the past few years, but I am starting to wonder whether it is really going to answer any questions for me any more than science does. There is something very unsatisfying for me about constructing an argument based on language - which is after all a human construction and maybe even an unnecessary one for thinking about this type of question (but our minds are so invaded by language that most of us forget to think in other ways).

According to John Gray in 'Straw Dogs', philosophy has generally been about searching for happiness rather than truth, even though it sells itself by this means - trying to find meanings for existence and moral ways of living. I think truth is bleaker than that and at the moment I can't stop questioning it and don't want to (truth is more important to me than any happiness at the moment), but I can invisage a time in the future when maybe I stop questionning and realise that in fact there was no point in questionning - maybe it is an important process to go through - you can't reach the other side without it, but then finally life can be appreciated for what it is without wondering too deeply into why and what if in hypothetical situation. Science developed from philosophy, but is so much more tangible - it can deliver results that impact directly on quality of life, and it has already pushed the borders of philosophy back considerably.

I think overall, the point I wanted to make with my previous post was to ask why you were wondering about this question - not that the question was stupid or ridiculous or even because I didn't know the answer, but whether you have really thought about whether the question is important, and why is it important (rather than just thinking so because you were taught it).

I believe it would, and I must admit I have been there.

Ok? If philosophy has under it's framework, the problem of "purpose" or the problem of "right and wrong", then it is incorrigible, because any use of science will always be done for the sake of some person's philosophy about purpose and according to someone's philosophy of right and wrong, and thus while science can improve lives, philosophy is incorrigible, by even denying it's value you have to reassert it to make the claim.