When philosophers tried to do science. Hilarity ensued.

[Unkotare]

The senses are more reliable than guessing.

Google Image Result for https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!TTpZ!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8ebbdc15-cd64-429d-97bb-6104c7086e8b_1200x675.jpeg

 

[GuyOnInternet]

The senses are all too easily fooled.

Here is a question I guarantee you will not answer. Even if you accept Aristotle's bullshit premises, were his conclusions 100% pure logic? The answer is NO and pure first order logic and empiricism are our only ways of knowing anything on any topic at all even tentatively regarding actionable knowledge.

 

[Unkotare]

Here is a question I guarantee you will not answer. Even if you accept Aristotle's bullshit premises, were his conclusions 100% pure logic? The answer is NO and pure first order logic and empiricism are our only ways of knowing anything on any topic at all even tentatively regarding actionable knowledge.

The only "knowledge" we can be secure in is the most basic cognition apriori.

 

[GuyOnInternet]

The only "knowledge" we can be secure in is the most basic cognition apriori.

So we can't be "secure" in our knowledge that the earth is an oblate spheroid?

 

[Unkotare]

So we can't be "secure" in our knowledge that the earth is an oblate spheroid?

Hold a pencil between your thumb and forefinger. Look at it and wiggle it up and down. Soon it will appear to be bending like rubber. Place your hand on a table top and leave it there for 20 minutes. After some time you will cease to feel the table. Sit in the dark for a while then turn on a bright light suddenly. What do you see? What is really there?

Your senses are very easily deceived, but you knew space and time before you were even born.

 

[GuyOnInternet]

Hold a pencil between your thumb and forefinger. Look at it and wiggle it up and down. Soon it will appear to be bending like rubber. Place your hand on a table top and leave it there for 20 minutes. After some time you will cease to feel the table. Sit in the dark for a while then turn on a bright light suddenly. What do you see? What is really there?

Your senses are very easily deceived, but you knew space and time before you were even born.

I guess our senses are deceiving us regarding the fact the earth is an oblate spheroid. It took us thousands of years to realize that and it was human intuition that held us back.

Here is an example of real logic. If you have three integers A, B, and C. If A = B and B = C, then we can logically deduce that A = C. That is real logic. Only pure logic is reliable, not liberal arts "logic".

 

[Unkotare]

I guess our senses are deceiving us regarding the fact the earth is an oblate spheroid. It took us thousands of years to realize that ...

No, it didn't. We accept it today as people always have because we agree upon our senses and logic. Of the two, our senses are the unreliable allies.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Here is an example of real logic. If you have three integers A, B, and C. If A = B and B = C, then we can logically deduce that A = C. That is real logic. ....

That is at it's base, knowledge apriori. You are arguing against yourself. You clearly need to embrace philosophy.

 

[Churchill]

Science broke off from philosophy and started over.

When do you think that happened?

They changed their name to disassociate themselves from the dumpster fire of "natural philosophy".

Again, can you shed light on who and when?

 

[Churchill]

I guess our senses are deceiving us regarding the fact the earth is an oblate spheroid. It took us thousands of years to realize that and it was human intuition that held us back.

You are not promotig science in this thread but scientism.

Here is an example of real logic. If you have three integers A, B, and C. If A = B and B = C, then we can logically deduce that A = C. That is real logic.

Mathematics is not science has no use of the scientific method.

Only pure logic is reliable, not liberal arts "logic".

That is a philosophical statement not a scientific one.

 

[GuyOnInternet]

You are not promotig science in this thread but scientism.

Mathematics is not science has no use of the scientific method.

That is a philosophical statement not a scientific one.

After the success of the Baconian Revolution in Science, people saw that philosophy is not good for solving complex technical problems. Natural Philosophers started calling themselves scientists for a reason.

Richard Feynman - "Philosophy of Science is as useful to scientists as Ornithology is to birds."
Stephen Hawking: > "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."
Justus von Liebig (Chemist): > "The most influential of all the causes which have prevented the development of the sciences... was the pestilence of 'Natural Philosophy'... it was the Black Death of our century."
Justus von Liebig, 1803 – 1873 The progress of mankind is due exclusively to the progress of natural sciences, not to morals, religion or philosophy.”

Galileo Galilei, 1596 – 1650 “If experiments are performed thousands of times at all seasons and in every place without once producing the effects mentioned by your philosophers, poets, and historians, this will mean nothing and we must believe their words rather than our own eyes?”

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

The issue was put to the test during the Baconian Revolution in Science and the jury is in. Scientists are better at studying nature and solving complex technical problems than philosophers are.

 

[Churchill]

After the success of the Baconian Revolution in Science, people saw that philosophy is not good for solving complex technical problems.

It was never expected to be.

Natural Philosophers started calling themselves scientists for a reason.

Did they?

Richard Feynman - "Philosophy of Science is as useful to scientists as Ornithology is to birds."

Feynman said no such thing, go and check.

Stephen Hawking: > "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."

But he wasn't a philosopher so that's he said something as silly as that.

Justus von Liebig (Chemist): > "The most influential of all the causes which have prevented the development of the sciences... was the pestilence of 'Natural Philosophy'... it was the Black Death of our century."
Justus von Liebig, 1803 – 1873 The progress of mankind is due exclusively to the progress of natural sciences, not to morals, religion or philosophy.”

Liebig didn't understand philosphy or science then.

Galileo Galilei, 1596 – 1650 “If experiments are performed thousands of times at all seasons and in every place without once producing the effects mentioned by your philosophers, poets, and historians, this will mean nothing and we must believe their words rather than our own eyes?”

He was referring to so-called philsophers who had made statements about nature that were not true, that isn't the same as rejecting philsophy itself only certain kinds of philsophical reasoning.

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

Lawrence Krauss is a fool, he makes philophical statements and doesn't see the irony. Krauss was also dismissed from Arziona University for inaprpopriate sexual advances to female students. He also claimed somethig can emerge from nothing, perhaps the most absurd statement ever made by a scientist.

By the way presenting those quotes is known as the argument from authority, a philosophical category.

The issue was put to the test during the Baconian Revolution in Science and the jury is in. Scientists are better at studying nature and solving complex technical problems than philosophers are.

What is this "issue" you speak of? Philosophy isn't science so why do expect it to be? I stand by what I said, you are speaking of scientism here not science and scientism is a philosophocal standpoint.

Like saying "The Jury is in, electrical engineers are better at desiging electrical systems than ballet dancers" - true but useless as a critque of ballet.

Science is rooted in philosophical beliefs, like nature is governed by laws and whenever we perform experiment X under identical conditions we will always observe result Y and the laws we seem to observe here are the same laws that apply a billion light years away.

Neither of these can be proven, whether nature really is like that is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

I studied theoretical physics and later electrical engineering and later philosophy, may I ask what you specialised area is?

Here listen to arguably the best popular science educator of the past hundred years, he'll teach you something if you are astute:

 

[GuyOnInternet]

After the success of the Baconian Revolution in Science, people saw that philosophy is not good for solving complex technical problems.

"It was never expected to be."

For 2,000 years philosophers were attempting to solve complex technical problems and they sucked at it. The Baconian Revolution killed philosophy.

"Like saying "The Jury is in, electrical engineers are better at desiging electrical systems than ballet dancers" - true but useless as a critque of ballet."

If there were a bunch of ballet dancers running around calling themselves Ballet Dancers of Electrical Engineering and saying electrical engineers need ballet dancers in order to do electrical engineering, you'd have a point. The fact that so many scientists have done science very well without studying philosophy is evidence that philosophy isn't good for solving technical problems. If it's not good for solving complex technical problems, what use is it?

It's not scientism. It's empiricism and mathematics EVERYWHERE in life.

 

[Churchill]

"It was never expected to be."

For 2,000 years philosophers were attempting to solve complex technical problems and they sucked at it. The Baconian Revolution killed philosophy.

"Like saying "The Jury is in, electrical engineers are better at desiging electrical systems than ballet dancers" - true but useless as a critque of ballet."

If there were a bunch of ballet dancers running around calling themselves Ballet Dancers of Electrical Engineering and saying electrical engineers need ballet dancers in order to do electrical engineering, you'd have a point. The fact that so many scientists have done science very well without studying philosophy is evidence that philosophy isn't good for solving technical problems. If it's not good for solving complex technical problems, what use is it?

It's not scientism. It's empiricism and mathematics EVERYWHERE in life.

You quoted yourself, please try again so I can make sense of what you said (hint, look at my reply to you in post 32)

 

[Churchill]

GuyOnInternet - I see you've abandoned your own thread. Well fine, but in future can you disucss philosophy in the philosophy area and not the science area?

Also state what exactly it is you object to, is it a particular philosopher or something said by a philosopher?