Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:04 pmBecause solipsism is consistent for example. Not really useful, but still.
Why are solipsism and empirical science mutually exclusive? Do observations have to be real in order for them to be mapped with mathematics?
mkm wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:57 pmHow do you measure propability of these possibilities?
Using the word probabilities was misleading, so I’m sorry. I just mean if we have two options it can be worthy to wager towards the one that is in our interest. For example, if it were either true that lions will eat us or that lions will not, it would be useful to wager on the former because it’s consistent with our self interest. In the context of ethics, I think we can deduce that either some ethical propositions are true and others are false or that all ethical propositions are false, and favor the former because we risk being evil if we accept the latter. I can explain if you’d like, but it does hinge on the assumption that classical logic should be used, which I’m not completely sure how to justify outside of it being broader than constructive logic.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:10 pm Why are solipsism and empirical science mutually exclusive? Do observations have to be real in order for them to be mapped with mathematics?
We may play with definitions of course, but usually in physics there is a sort of ontological realism assumed that there is a reality functioning somehow independently from observers, and epistemological assumption, that our senses and extensions of our senses via tools give us a good approximation of that reality. Solipsism, as I see it, lacks both of these.
You could also start with logic and argue that inductive reasonings, which are basis of the scientific method, just don't follow.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:10 pm Using the word probabilities was misleading, so I’m sorry. I just mean if we have two options it can be worthy to wager towards the one that is in our interest. For example, if it were either true that lions will eat us or that lions will not, it would be useful to wager on the former because it’s consistent with our self interest. In the context of ethics, I think we can deduce that either some ethical propositions are true and others are false or that all ethical propositions are false, and favor the former because we risk being evil if we accept the latter. I can explain if you’d like, but it does hinge on the assumption that classical logic should be used, which I’m not completely sure how to justify outside of it being broader than constructive logic.
Ok, but then distinction what's "good" and "bad" philosophy is blurry and depends on initial values of a "philosopher" and how he weighs certain outcomes.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:13 amYou could also start with logic and argue that inductive reasonings, which are basis of the scientific method, just don't follow.
That’s a good example. Inductive reasoning is definitely weaker than deduction. Then science is simply worse philosophy than things not relying on inductive reasoning. Math and logic, basically. Everything else that attempts to make claims about the real world will rely on inductive reasoning in one way or another.
mkm wrote:Ok, but then distinction what's "good" and "bad" philosophy is blurry and depends on initial values of a "philosopher" and how he weighs certain outcomes.
Good point. Then I think it would be useful to add that good philosophers use good philosophy consistent with their values.

Do you think there is a better way to distinguish between good philosophy and bad philosophy?
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:48 pm That’s a good example. Inductive reasoning is definitely weaker than deduction. Then science is simply worse philosophy than things not relying on inductive reasoning. Math and logic, basically. Everything else that attempts to make claims about the real world will rely on inductive reasoning in one way or another.
I don't think it makes the science worse philosophy, it just means that the science has other goals and needs less limited tools. You won't go too far staying only in your mind and segregating things only using logic and deduction.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:48 pm Good point. Then I think it would be useful to add that good philosophers use good philosophy consistent with their values.
Good philosophy is that used by good philosophers, who you recognize as good, because they use good philosophy :D
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:48 pm Do you think there is a better way to distinguish between good philosophy and bad philosophy?
Right now I'm not sure what are we talking about. I have my favourite filters, like is it consistent?; does it contradict science?; is it described with clarity, or someone tries to flood you with scientifically sounding nonsense?, etc. Some are softer than others, e.g. consistency is a must have for me, and I allow metaphysics, since you can't really get away without it, so it's relation to science may be vague or non-existent. Not that science doesn't have metaphysical assumptions too.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by carnap »

mkm wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:13 am We may play with definitions of course, but usually in physics there is a sort of ontological realism assumed that there is a reality functioning somehow independently from observers, and epistemological assumption, that our senses and extensions of our senses via tools give us a good approximation of that reality.
Which is to say that scientists often operate with a large amount of metaphysical assumptions about the world, assumptions that cannot be addressed by science.

Also questions about what is and isn't good philosophy are akin to questions about what is good and bad mathematics. In both cases you can analyze arguments and concepts given but that doesn't tell you about the overall usefulness and importance of some specific theory or idea. Mathematics, like Philosophy, is filled with ideas that go nowhere. And in both cases you're dealing with a subject that doesn't readily connect to the observable world.

What does it mean for a mathematical assertion to be "true"?
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by mkm »

carnap wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:52 pm Which is to say that scientists often operate with a large amount of metaphysical assumptions about the world, assumptions that cannot be addressed by science.
I agree.
carnap wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:52 pm Also questions about what is and isn't good philosophy are akin to questions about what is good and bad mathematics. In both cases you can analyze arguments and concepts given but that doesn't tell you about the overall usefulness and importance of some specific theory or idea. Mathematics, like Philosophy, is filled with ideas that go nowhere. And in both cases you're dealing with a subject that doesn't readily connect to the observable world.
I guess it's akin in the way that both terms "good/bad philosophy" and "good/bad mathematics" are so vague, that I still don't know what exactly are we talikng about. What does it even mean useful in this context? That you can commercialize it? Clearly there are no practical uses of large cardinals, but does it mean it's useless or nonimportant? How does one know whether some idea in mathematics goes nowhere?
carnap wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:52 pm What does it mean for a mathematical assertion to be "true"?
We have a mathematical logic for that :)
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by carnap »

mkm wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:57 am I guess it's akin in the way that both terms "good/bad philosophy" and "good/bad mathematics" are so vague, that I still don't know what exactly are we talikng about. What does it even mean useful in this context? That you can commercialize it? Clearly there are no practical uses of large cardinals, but does it mean it's useless or nonimportant? How does one know whether some idea in mathematics goes nowhere?
My point is much of what people critique philosophy also applies to pure mathematics. You seemed to be deriding philosophy while holding up mathematics. Much of pure mathematics isn't "useful" in the sense that it has no application to the real world nor is it even clear how it would potentially be applied, ironically philosophy is often more grounded in real world issues than mathematics.

But, yeah, its by no means clear what theories in mathematics (or philosophy) end up being useful. That relies on the vision of people that may exploit the theory for something concrete in the future.

mkm wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:57 am We have a mathematical logic for that :)
Mathematical logic doesn't address the issue, the definition of L |= G hinges on a meta-notion of truth. That is every model that makes L true also makes G true. You can define some arbitrary "truth operator" but that doesn't tell you what it ultimately means for a mathematical assertion to be true. What does mathematics describe exactly?

Also "mathematical logic" doesn't represent any particular logic. So which logic exactly defines "the truth" in mathematics? Classical? Intuitionistic? Perhaps some sub-structural logic?
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by mkm »

carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:50 pm My point is much of what people critique philosophy also applies to pure mathematics.
Have you heard that joke: what's the difference between mathematician and philosopher? The former needs a pencil, paper, and trash bin to work, the latter only pencil and paper ;)
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:50 pm You seemed to be deriding philosophy while holding up mathematics.
Not all philosophy clearly, somewhere above I said something about filters.
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:50 pm Much of pure mathematics isn't "useful" in the sense that it has no application to the real world nor is it even clear how it would potentially be applied, ironically philosophy is often more grounded in real world issues than mathematics.
Of course, that's not really the goal of pure math, to be grounded in "the real world".
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:50 pm hinges on a meta-notion of truth.
We don't really have any other notion of truth, so that's the closest as it gets. When we talk about language we have to use some language, it's hard to pick up a bucket in which we stand.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by carnap »

mkm wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:05 pm Have you heard that joke: what's the difference between mathematician and philosopher? The former needs a pencil, paper, and trash bin to work, the latter only pencil and paper ;)
I have but (academic) philosophy has certain standards just like mathematics. The problem is that "philosophy" is both an academic field and a colloquial term referring to pretty much any system of thought someone may have.

mkm wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:05 pm Of course, that's not really the goal of pure math, to be grounded in "the real world".
Right..its not. But if pure mathematics never has an application to the real world what value is it exactly? Its little more than a game at that point.
mkm wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:05 pm We don't really have any other notion of truth, so that's the closest as it gets. When we talk about language we have to use some language, it's hard to pick up a bucket in which we stand.
"Truth" in the metalanguage isn't the same as "truth" in the object language. Also we have more than one notion of "truth", for example, the "truth" of a scientific statement is much different than a mathematical one. After all mathematical assertions don't hinge on observation so in what sense they are "true" isn't clear.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:48 amI don't think it makes the science worse philosophy, it just means that the science has other goals and needs less limited tools.
You could use that to justify any fallacious mode of thinking, no?
mkm wrote:You won't go too far staying only in your mind and segregating things only using logic and deduction.
True, but if we could, everything would surely be clearer.
mkm wrote:Good philosophy is that used by good philosophers, who you recognize as good, because they use good philosophy :D
The two are independent of each other. All good philosophers utilize good philosophy in a manner consistent with their values. Good philosophy derived it’s goodness from the afformentioned characteristics, independent of whether or not good philosophers choose to use it.
mkm wrote:I have my favourite filters, like is it consistent?;
We both agree on this.
mkm wrote:does it contradict science?; is it described with clarity, or someone tries to flood you with scientifically sounding nonsense?, etc.
Would you agree that this should only be true for philosophy dealing with the real world?
Post Reply