Philosophy of Science never should have been created.

[GuyOnInternet]

Natural Philosophy broke off and eventually completely distanced itself from Philosophy in the 17th century, renaming itself Science. The result was the Baconian Revolution in Science. Science advanced because Scientists got away from the Philosophers and used empiricism rather than “wouldn’t-you-thinkism”. Around 1900, some people got the idea to create Philosophy of Science. They meant well. They were Logical Empiricists, mostly from a Math or Physics background. They were trying to rescue Philosophy. They knew Philosophy had nothing to offer Science, except they thought Science could rescue Philosophy by making it more like Science. They told scientists not to listen to any Philosophers, including themselves and set to work attempting to save Philosophy from itself. Eventually, the entire project mutated and turned on its head when philosophers like Karl Popper came along. Karl Popper is not an enemy of irrationalism, he is a huge source of it.

Everyone has always acknowledged that all knowledge is technically tentative and we will never really, really, really know for sure, except some things have been experimentally tested and passed so many tests that we tentatively regard them as fact until they are disproven, except things do not start being treated as fact. Some theories are a lot more likely to be true than others.

Most people think that Popper was saying that we will never be absolutely certain. That is not what he said. He said no theory ever becomes even more likely to be true. He argues this by claiming that every scientific theory is a universal negative such as there are no black swans anywhere in the universe. You can never search the entire universe, so you can never prove the claim to be true. You can, however, prove the claim that there are black swans to be true by DISCOVERING black swans. We should remember that science is all about a giant collection of discoveries and inventions and technological innovation. Most theories, not universal laws, theories are neither universal negatives nor universal positives. The theory that the earth is shaped like a sphere, the theory that the planets orbits the sun, the theory that your heart pumps blood through your body for example are not of the nature all As are B or there are no Xes. This is very important to remember because the black swans gimmick does not apply to scientific theories that are not universal negatives.

Here is what Popper said:

“We must regard all laws and theories as guesses.” (Objective Knowledge, 9)

All scientific theories are guesses? Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is a guess? Scientists are only guessing when they say your heart pumps blood through your body, which was not known until the 17th century. You should treat that claim as a guess? Don’t give me bullshit about context on a quote like that.

“I never assume that by force of ‘verified’ conclusions, theories can be established as ‘true’, or even as merely ‘probable’.” (Logic of Scientific Discovery, 10)

The theory that the earth is shaped like a sphere is not even probable?

“Of two hypotheses, the one that is logically stronger, or more informative, or better testable, and thus the one which can be better corroborated, is always less probable — on any given evidence — than the other.”

Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is extremely testable, whereas astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis are not. Therefore, there is no evidence for or against astrology or psychoanalysis. This does not mean that Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is “less probable” than astrology or psychobabble. Popper talks about “evidence” in favor of astrology and Freudian psychobabble and how they are “verifiable”. Any “evidence” astrologers or psychobabblers present is meaningless and none of it counts. Popper says that even though they are pseudoscientific, astrology and Freudian psychobabble are more likely to be true than the theory that your heart pumps blood through your body. This is nonsense.

Popper wrote at length while bending over backwards and twisting into linguistic pretzels in order to avoid phrases such as “likely to be true” and “too open to interpretation”.

If Popper was right, the so-called “naiive Positivists” would be the most likely to believe in stupid crap like astrology, fortune tellers, and make-believe social “science”, which is an oxymoron. In fact, Logical Empiricists are the least likely to believe in things like astrology and psychobabble. This is because everything that can’t be observed and measured is meaningless. Everyone knows that deep down, except only Empiricists are honest enough to accept it.

Popper based everything on a non-existant “problem of induction” he got from Hume. Let’s look at this supposed “problem” in more detail. The reason people don’t jump off of cliffs is not because they read Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and they’re worried about matter warping space. It is because they are reasoning inductively whether they want to admit it or not. If they say otherwise, they are lying. According to their silly “problem of induction” people in ancient times had no good reason to believe they would fall to their death if they jumped off a cliff. The argument goes like this. No matter how many times you drop a rock and it falls to the ground, unless you have “logically deduced” why it is falling, literally no matter how many times you drop a rock and watch it fall, in no way shape or form does it even increase the likelihood that the next rock you drop will fall to the ground. According to the “problem”of induction, no matter many times the sun rises every day, it does not even increase the likelihood that it will rise tomorrow. This is stupid.

The potential for something to be disproven is necessary, except not sufficient. In addition to, not instead of, not getting your theory disproven, you also have to make a convincing argument that it is likely to be at least approximately true. The only purpose of science is to serve as a foundation for future technological advancements. Planes fly, cars drive, technology works and all humans reason inductively. In contrast, Philosophy of Science is all talk. In the words of Richard Feynman, “Philosophy of Science is as useful to scientists as Ornithology is to birds.”

Here are more quotes from scientists.

Paul Dirac

“[philosophy is] just a way of talking about discoveries that have already been made.”

Justus von Liebig

“The progress of mankind is due exclusively to the progress of natural sciences, not to morals, religion or philosophy.”

Lawrence Krauss

“Of course, philosophy is the field that hasn’t progressed in two thousand years.”

Stephen Hawking

“Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Lewis Wolpert

“Philosophers have contributed nothing. And if we go back to the suggestion that it was philosophers who brought about the Scientific Revolution and the Renaissance – it’s simply false! Galileo was not a philosopher. He was a scientist.”

Here are two videos that are very instructional.





Here is a philosopher bashing philosophy and endorsing empiricism.

Bertrand Russel :

“Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.”

Notice how Bertrand Russell used the word verify to mean test experimentally. You count the teeth and objectively let the chips fall where they may.

Many scientists such as Neil de Grasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Lawrence Krauss have spoken publicly about the uselessness of Philosophy of Science. People should heedtheir warning.

The best authors I have found on epistemology are Francis Bacon, John Stuart Mill, Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russell, Moritz Schlick, and David Stove.

 

[White 6]

Natural Philosophy broke off and eventually completely distanced itself from Philosophy in the 17th century, renaming itself Science. The result was the Baconian Revolution in Science. Science advanced because Scientists got away from the Philosophers and used empiricism rather than “wouldn’t-you-thinkism”. Around 1900, some people got the idea to create Philosophy of Science. They meant well. They were Logical Empiricists, mostly from a Math or Physics background. They were trying to rescue Philosophy. They knew Philosophy had nothing to offer Science, except they thought Science could rescue Philosophy by making it more like Science. They told scientists not to listen to any Philosophers, including themselves and set to work attempting to save Philosophy from itself. Eventually, the entire project mutated and turned on its head when philosophers like Karl Popper came along. Karl Popper is not an enemy of irrationalism, he is a huge source of it.

Everyone has always acknowledged that all knowledge is technically tentative and we will never really, really, really know for sure, except some things have been experimentally tested and passed so many tests that we tentatively regard them as fact until they are disproven, except things do not start being treated as fact. Some theories are a lot more likely to be true than others.

Most people think that Popper was saying that we will never be absolutely certain. That is not what he said. He said no theory ever becomes even more likely to be true. He argues this by claiming that every scientific theory is a universal negative such as there are no black swans anywhere in the universe. You can never search the entire universe, so you can never prove the claim to be true. You can, however, prove the claim that there are black swans to be true by DISCOVERING black swans. We should remember that science is all about a giant collection of discoveries and inventions and technological innovation. Most theories, not universal laws, theories are neither universal negatives nor universal positives. The theory that the earth is shaped like a sphere, the theory that the planets orbits the sun, the theory that your heart pumps blood through your body for example are not of the nature all As are B or there are no Xes. This is very important to remember because the black swans gimmick does not apply to scientific theories that are not universal negatives.

Here is what Popper said:

“We must regard all laws and theories as guesses.” (Objective Knowledge, 9)

All scientific theories are guesses? Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is a guess? Scientists are only guessing when they say your heart pumps blood through your body, which was not known until the 17th century. You should treat that claim as a guess? Don’t give me bullshit about context on a quote like that.

“I never assume that by force of ‘verified’ conclusions, theories can be established as ‘true’, or even as merely ‘probable’.” (Logic of Scientific Discovery, 10)

The theory that the earth is shaped like a sphere is not even probable?

“Of two hypotheses, the one that is logically stronger, or more informative, or better testable, and thus the one which can be better corroborated, is always less probable — on any given evidence — than the other.”

Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is extremely testable, whereas astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis are not. Therefore, there is no evidence for or against astrology or psychoanalysis. This does not mean that Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is “less probable” than astrology or psychobabble. Popper talks about “evidence” in favor of astrology and Freudian psychobabble and how they are “verifiable”. Any “evidence” astrologers or psychobabblers present is meaningless and none of it counts. Popper says that even though they are pseudoscientific, astrology and Freudian psychobabble are more likely to be true than the theory that your heart pumps blood through your body. This is nonsense.

Popper wrote at length while bending over backwards and twisting into linguistic pretzels in order to avoid phrases such as “likely to be true” and “too open to interpretation”.

If Popper was right, the so-called “naiive Positivists” would be the most likely to believe in stupid crap like astrology, fortune tellers, and make-believe social “science”, which is an oxymoron. In fact, Logical Empiricists are the least likely to believe in things like astrology and psychobabble. This is because everything that can’t be observed and measured is meaningless. Everyone knows that deep down, except only Empiricists are honest enough to accept it.

Popper based everything on a non-existant “problem of induction” he got from Hume. Let’s look at this supposed “problem” in more detail. The reason people don’t jump off of cliffs is not because they read Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and they’re worried about matter warping space. It is because they are reasoning inductively whether they want to admit it or not. If they say otherwise, they are lying. According to their silly “problem of induction” people in ancient times had no good reason to believe they would fall to their death if they jumped off a cliff. The argument goes like this. No matter how many times you drop a rock and it falls to the ground, unless you have “logically deduced” why it is falling, literally no matter how many times you drop a rock and watch it fall, in no way shape or form does it even increase the likelihood that the next rock you drop will fall to the ground. According to the “problem”of induction, no matter many times the sun rises every day, it does not even increase the likelihood that it will rise tomorrow. This is stupid.

The potential for something to be disproven is necessary, except not sufficient. In addition to, not instead of, not getting your theory disproven, you also have to make a convincing argument that it is likely to be at least approximately true. The only purpose of science is to serve as a foundation for future technological advancements. Planes fly, cars drive, technology works and all humans reason inductively. In contrast, Philosophy of Science is all talk. In the words of Richard Feynman, “Philosophy of Science is useful as to scientists as Ornithology is to birds.”

Here are more quotes from scientists.

Paul Dirac

“[philosophy is] just a way of talking about discoveries that have already been made.”

Justus von Liebig

“The progress of mankind is due exclusively to the progress of natural sciences, not to morals, religion or philosophy.”

Lawrence Krauss

“Of course, philosophy is the field that hasn’t progressed in two thousand years.”

Stephen Hawking

“Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Lewis Wolpert

“Philosophers have contributed nothing. And if we go back to the suggestion that it was philosophers who brought about the Scientific Revolution and the Renaissance – it’s simply false! Galileo was not a philosopher. He was a scientist.”

Here are two videos that are very instructional.





Here is a philosopher bashing philosophy and endorsing empiricism.

Bertrand Russel :

“Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.”

Notice how Bertrand Russell used the word verify to mean test experimentally. You count the teeth and objectively let the chips fall where they may.

Many scientists such as Neil de Grasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Lawrence Krauss have spoken publicly about the uselessness of Philosophy of Science. People should heedtheir warning.

The best authors I have found on epistemology are Francis Bacon, John Stuart Mill, Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russell, Moritz Schlick, and David Stove.

Wow. So you only got "B"s in chemistry and physics, and "C" in philosophy 101. It was a long time ago. Get over it.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

Why not join the taliban or move into a cave? Goddamn animal.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Natural Philosophy broke off and eventually completely distanced itself from Philosophy in the 17th century, renaming itself Science. The result was the Baconian Revolution in Science. Science advanced because Scientists got away from the Philosophers and used empiricism rather than “wouldn’t-you-thinkism”. Around 1900, some people got the idea to create Philosophy of Science. They meant well. They were Logical Empiricists, mostly from a Math or Physics background. They were trying to rescue Philosophy. They knew Philosophy had nothing to offer Science, except they thought Science could rescue Philosophy by making it more like Science. They told scientists not to listen to any Philosophers, including themselves and set to work attempting to save Philosophy from itself. Eventually, the entire project mutated and turned on its head when philosophers like Karl Popper came along. Karl Popper is not an enemy of irrationalism, he is a huge source of it.

Everyone has always acknowledged that all knowledge is technically tentative and we will never really, really, really know for sure, except some things have been experimentally tested and passed so many tests that we tentatively regard them as fact until they are disproven, except things do not start being treated as fact. Some theories are a lot more likely to be true than others.

Most people think that Popper was saying that we will never be absolutely certain. That is not what he said. He said no theory ever becomes even more likely to be true. He argues this by claiming that every scientific theory is a universal negative such as there are no black swans anywhere in the universe. You can never search the entire universe, so you can never prove the claim to be true. You can, however, prove the claim that there are black swans to be true by DISCOVERING black swans. We should remember that science is all about a giant collection of discoveries and inventions and technological innovation. Most theories, not universal laws, theories are neither universal negatives nor universal positives. The theory that the earth is shaped like a sphere, the theory that the planets orbits the sun, the theory that your heart pumps blood through your body for example are not of the nature all As are B or there are no Xes. This is very important to remember because the black swans gimmick does not apply to scientific theories that are not universal negatives.

Here is what Popper said:

“We must regard all laws and theories as guesses.” (Objective Knowledge, 9)

All scientific theories are guesses? Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is a guess? Scientists are only guessing when they say your heart pumps blood through your body, which was not known until the 17th century. You should treat that claim as a guess? Don’t give me bullshit about context on a quote like that.

“I never assume that by force of ‘verified’ conclusions, theories can be established as ‘true’, or even as merely ‘probable’.” (Logic of Scientific Discovery, 10)

The theory that the earth is shaped like a sphere is not even probable?

“Of two hypotheses, the one that is logically stronger, or more informative, or better testable, and thus the one which can be better corroborated, is always less probable — on any given evidence — than the other.”

Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is extremely testable, whereas astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis are not. Therefore, there is no evidence for or against astrology or psychoanalysis. This does not mean that Harvey’s Theory of Blood Circulation is “less probable” than astrology or psychobabble. Popper talks about “evidence” in favor of astrology and Freudian psychobabble and how they are “verifiable”. Any “evidence” astrologers or psychobabblers present is meaningless and none of it counts. Popper says that even though they are pseudoscientific, astrology and Freudian psychobabble are more likely to be true than the theory that your heart pumps blood through your body. This is nonsense.

Popper wrote at length while bending over backwards and twisting into linguistic pretzels in order to avoid phrases such as “likely to be true” and “too open to interpretation”.

If Popper was right, the so-called “naiive Positivists” would be the most likely to believe in stupid crap like astrology, fortune tellers, and make-believe social “science”, which is an oxymoron. In fact, Logical Empiricists are the least likely to believe in things like astrology and psychobabble. This is because everything that can’t be observed and measured is meaningless. Everyone knows that deep down, except only Empiricists are honest enough to accept it.

Popper based everything on a non-existant “problem of induction” he got from Hume. Let’s look at this supposed “problem” in more detail. The reason people don’t jump off of cliffs is not because they read Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and they’re worried about matter warping space. It is because they are reasoning inductively whether they want to admit it or not. If they say otherwise, they are lying. According to their silly “problem of induction” people in ancient times had no good reason to believe they would fall to their death if they jumped off a cliff. The argument goes like this. No matter how many times you drop a rock and it falls to the ground, unless you have “logically deduced” why it is falling, literally no matter how many times you drop a rock and watch it fall, in no way shape or form does it even increase the likelihood that the next rock you drop will fall to the ground. According to the “problem”of induction, no matter many times the sun rises every day, it does not even increase the likelihood that it will rise tomorrow. This is stupid.

The potential for something to be disproven is necessary, except not sufficient. In addition to, not instead of, not getting your theory disproven, you also have to make a convincing argument that it is likely to be at least approximately true. The only purpose of science is to serve as a foundation for future technological advancements. Planes fly, cars drive, technology works and all humans reason inductively. In contrast, Philosophy of Science is all talk. In the words of Richard Feynman, “Philosophy of Science is as useful to scientists as Ornithology is to birds.”

Here are more quotes from scientists.

Paul Dirac

“[philosophy is] just a way of talking about discoveries that have already been made.”

Justus von Liebig

“The progress of mankind is due exclusively to the progress of natural sciences, not to morals, religion or philosophy.”

Lawrence Krauss

“Of course, philosophy is the field that hasn’t progressed in two thousand years.”

Stephen Hawking

“Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Lewis Wolpert

“Philosophers have contributed nothing. And if we go back to the suggestion that it was philosophers who brought about the Scientific Revolution and the Renaissance – it’s simply false! Galileo was not a philosopher. He was a scientist.”

Here are two videos that are very instructional.





Here is a philosopher bashing philosophy and endorsing empiricism.

Bertrand Russel :

“Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.”

Notice how Bertrand Russell used the word verify to mean test experimentally. You count the teeth and objectively let the chips fall where they may.

Many scientists such as Neil de Grasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Lawrence Krauss have spoken publicly about the uselessness of Philosophy of Science. People should heed their warning.

The best authors I have found on epistemology are Francis Bacon, John Stuart Mill, Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russell, Moritz Schlick, and David Stove.

Interesting and well put topic introduction. I mostly agree, but Feynman waxing philosophically here about magnetism, pretending to "know something," just couldn't be bothered explaining it so simply got lost in his stupid analogy as a diversion. If one can't explain something complicated to a layman, they can't explain it to physics students either. He should have just replied 'It's a fundamental force that we call "the magnetic force" in modern physics. Beyond that I don't know.' Because he didn't.

Philosophy "is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions"
Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
Philosophy then is a science ("the systematic study of" something pretending to somehow be something more. Something beyond, yet there is no logical escape from "the systematic study of" (something) since that is the true essence of science -- which it admits to being right upfront..

 

[GuyOnInternet]

Interesting and well put topic introduction. I mostly agree, but Feynman waxing philosophically here about magnetism, pretending to "know something," just couldn't be bothered explaining it so simply got lost in his stupid analogy as a diversion. If one can't explain something complicated to a layman, they can't explain it to physics students either. He should have just replied 'It's a fundamental force that we call "the magnetic force" in modern physics. Beyond that I don't know.' Because he didn't.

Philosophy "is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions"
Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
Philosophy then is a science ("the systematic study of" something pretending to somehow be something more. Something beyond, yet there is no logical escape from "the systematic study of" (something) since that is the true essence of science -- which it admits to being right upfront..

Feynman gave an awesome explanation as to why we should be careful about asking why questions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Was that in response to anyone actually asking, "Professor Feynman, why should we be careful about asking why questions?" or was he just dissembling to dazzle those believing critical thinking to be a sin? Style over substance? If it was such "an awesome explanation" why can't you (or I) remember any of it?

 

[ReinyDays]

The philosophy of meteorology is saving lives ... and we use science for this end ... but saving lives isn't a scientific outcome ... it's strictly a philosophical outcome ... it's the right thing to do, without defining what right is ...

"Good" and "evil" aren't part of science ... but they exist ... [insert "True Scotsman" fallacy here] ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

The philosophy of meteorology is saving lives ... and we use science for this end ... but saving lives isn't a scientific outcome ... it's strictly a philosophical outcome ... it's the right thing to do, without defining what right is ...

"Good" and "evil" aren't part of science ... but they exist ... [insert "True Scotsman" fallacy here] ...

The science of meteorology (or methodical study of atmospheric phenomena) requires no Scotsmen wearing undergarments, nor saving of lives for that matter.

 

[ReinyDays]

The science of meteorology (or methodical study of atmospheric phenomena) requires no Scotsmen wearing undergarments, nor saving of lives for that matter.

You don't think weather forecasts save lives ... obviously, you don't know much about meteorology ...

How much do you know about philosophy? ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

You don't think weather forecasts save lives ... obviously, you don't know much about meteorology ...

No self-respecting Scotsman would be caught dead slaying a strawman like that whilst wearing undergarments.

How much do you know about philosophy? ...

I know that I hated it in both HS and college for much the same reason, but couldn't quite put it into a coherent stream of words back then.

Philosophy then is a science ("the systematic study of" something pretending to somehow be something more. Something beyond, yet there is no logical escape from "the systematic study of" (something) since that is the true essence of science -- which it admits to being right upfront.

 

[luiza]

Try reading Vernadsky before re thinking your OP .

 

[Grumblenuts]

How much do you know about philosophy? ...

Wikipedia provides plenty to ponder..

But if you're really prepared to wear your ego on your sleeve, here are some homework problems for you to publicly resolve:

List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ReinyDays]

Wikipedia provides plenty to ponder..

But if you're really prepared to wear your ego on your sleeve, here are some homework problems for you to publicly resolve:

List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What are your "testable explanations" of philosophy ... what lab experiment can we set up to demonstrate Plato's idealism? ... Disraeli's pragmatism ... Trump's monogamy? ...

I'll bite ... first on the list is a "Theory of Everything" or as the eggs-heads call it "Universal Field Theory" ... the problem here is that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are mutually exclusive ... they cannot be both right ... therefore, one and/or the other is wrong ... of QM, we have no counter-examples ... sadly GR doesn't fair as well; type 1a supernovae, Planck's distance just after the CMB epoch, but let's focus on galaxies flying apart 10 billion years ago ... that didn't happen, obviously, so there's something fundamentally wrong with Einstein's model of gravity ... Max Planck was right, Einstein should never have broached the subject ...

We're a Euclidian people living in a non-Euclidian reality ... I stake my ego on it ... I don't log in with my pride, so no harm if I'm wrong ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

 

[SavannahMann]

I would disagree. Philosophy is the ideals behind the thing being discussed. Legal philosophy. It is the ideals and principles that are the foundation of the law. Scientific Philosophy is also important. What are you trying to discover and why?

Let’s say I devise a device which will eradicate all life on earth. A doomsday device. Because I can build it, should I?

The Philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction kept nuclear war from becoming reality. It was wasteful and insane. But it worked.

We devised the Ballistic Missile Submarines to prevent a sneak attack. A no warning first strike that took out our ability to strike back. The philosophy that guided this was simple and complex. You couldn’t find all the submarines. And they would fire the missiles when the doomsday tape ran out.

Wipe out our command and control system. Three days later the Submarines fire their missiles. It makes Nuclear War a nobody wins scenario. When some clever politician or General comes up with a brilliant plan to destroy the enemy. The others involved point out the Submarines and how they will destroy us too.

The Philosophy of MAD is that nobody wins a Nuclear War. It makes any national leader who considers such a thing a Suicide Bomber of epic proportions. Yes. The enemy is destroyed. Yes. Your own nation is destroyed.

Let’s look at Ukraine for a moment. If Putin had decided to meet the conditions of a Just War, based upon the Philosophy first put forth by St. Augustine, he would not have attacked.

However the Russians don’t believe in the Just War Philosophy. They believe in the science of war. They reduce War to calculation. Math. If I have a thousand soldiers and you have one hundred. I win. This is why Russia has lied so consistently. They don’t have the philosophy of a Just War.

Philosophy is the foundation of everything. We shout that it isn’t fair. We base our arguments on philosophy. Our legal system is based upon the Philosophical ideal that the courts are intended to decide what is justice. In each case.

But in Science. Philistinism vital. History is full of examples where Philosophy was either perverted, or ignored. They went with pseudoscience and superiority instead of the philosophical principles of truth.

 

[ReinyDays]

I would disagree. Philosophy is the ideals behind the thing being discussed. Legal philosophy. It is the ideals and principles that are the foundation of the law. Scientific Philosophy is also important. What are you trying to discover and why?

Let’s say I devise a device which will eradicate all life on earth. A doomsday device. Because I can build it, should I?

The Philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction kept nuclear war from becoming reality. It was wasteful and insane. But it worked.

We devised the Ballistic Missile Submarines to prevent a sneak attack. A no warning first strike that took out our ability to strike back. The philosophy that guided this was simple and complex. You couldn’t find all the submarines. And they would fire the missiles when the doomsday tape ran out.

Wipe out our command and control system. Three days later the Submarines fire their missiles. It makes Nuclear War a nobody wins scenario. When some clever politician or General comes up with a brilliant plan to destroy the enemy. The others involved point out the Submarines and how they will destroy us too.

The Philosophy of MAD is that nobody wins a Nuclear War. It makes any national leader who considers such a thing a Suicide Bomber of epic proportions. Yes. The enemy is destroyed. Yes. Your own nation is destroyed.

Let’s look at Ukraine for a moment. If Putin had decided to meet the conditions of a Just War, based upon the Philosophy first put forth by St. Augustine, he would not have attacked.

However the Russians don’t believe in the Just War Philosophy. They believe in the science of war. They reduce War to calculation. Math. If I have a thousand soldiers and you have one hundred. I win. This is why Russia has lied so consistently. They don’t have the philosophy of a Just War.

Philosophy is the foundation of everything. We shout that it isn’t fair. We base our arguments on philosophy. Our legal system is based upon the Philosophical ideal that the courts are intended to decide what is justice. In each case.

But in Science. Philistinism vital. History is full of examples where Philosophy was either perverted, or ignored. They went with pseudoscience and superiority instead of the philosophical principles of truth.

Your Marxist Philosophy in your sig line is noted ... so I'm going to argue against you ... it's NOT science until we test this doomsday device, set it off and we'll see if it destroys all life on Earth ... go ahead, I dare you ... you don't care what it is, damn Marxist, you're against it ... ain't ya? ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Good fun. Here, devour some nice, meaty morsels from Max Planck:

Max Planck Quotes (Author of The Origin And Development Of The Quantum Theory)

32 quotes from Max Planck: 'Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.', 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light...

www.goodreads.com

 

[ReinyDays]

Good fun. Here, devour some nice, meaty morsels from Max Planck:

Max Planck Quotes (Author of The Origin And Development Of The Quantum Theory)

32 quotes from Max Planck: 'Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.', 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light...

www.goodreads.com

Still working on finding out where all the anti-matter is ... I'll need a few more days ...

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem

home.cern

 

[SavannahMann]

Your Marxist Philosophy in your sig line is noted ... so I'm going to argue against you ... it's NOT science until we test this doomsday device, set it off and we'll see if it destroys all life on Earth ... go ahead, I dare you ... you don't care what it is, damn Marxist, you're against it ... ain't ya? ...

You apparently don’t realize who said what I quoted.

It wasn’t Karl. It was Groucho. You know. The Marx Brother.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Still working on finding out where all the anti-matter is ... I'll need a few more days ...

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem

home.cern

Hey, good luck with that!

 

[Grumblenuts]

I would disagree. Philosophy is the ideals behind the thing being discussed. Legal philosophy. It is the ideals and principles that are the foundation of the law. Scientific Philosophy is also important. What are you trying to discover and why?

Let’s say I devise a device which will eradicate all life on earth. A doomsday device. Because I can build it, should I?

The Philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction kept nuclear war from becoming reality. It was wasteful and insane. But it worked.

We devised the Ballistic Missile Submarines to prevent a sneak attack. A no warning first strike that took out our ability to strike back. The philosophy that guided this was simple and complex. You couldn’t find all the submarines. And they would fire the missiles when the doomsday tape ran out.

Wipe out our command and control system. Three days later the Submarines fire their missiles. It makes Nuclear War a nobody wins scenario. When some clever politician or General comes up with a brilliant plan to destroy the enemy. The others involved point out the Submarines and how they will destroy us too.

The Philosophy of MAD is that nobody wins a Nuclear War. It makes any national leader who considers such a thing a Suicide Bomber of epic proportions. Yes. The enemy is destroyed. Yes. Your own nation is destroyed.

Let’s look at Ukraine for a moment. If Putin had decided to meet the conditions of a Just War, based upon the Philosophy first put forth by St. Augustine, he would not have attacked.

However the Russians don’t believe in the Just War Philosophy. They believe in the science of war. They reduce War to calculation. Math. If I have a thousand soldiers and you have one hundred. I win. This is why Russia has lied so consistently. They don’t have the philosophy of a Just War.

Philosophy is the foundation of everything. We shout that it isn’t fair. We base our arguments on philosophy. Our legal system is based upon the Philosophical ideal that the courts are intended to decide what is justice. In each case.

But in Science. Philistinism vital. History is full of examples where Philosophy was either perverted, or ignored. They went with pseudoscience and superiority instead of the philosophical principles of truth.

Thanks for weighing in. I just finished reading an interesting philosophy involving beer. I'd characterize it as "Philistinism vital."

Killing the Myth of The Guy You Want to Have a Beer With

The pint-sized American political imagination

lyz.substack.com