- #36
Alexander
Does philosophy still use logic today?
Yes, it is concerned with the second of two ways an argument can fail. That is; do the premises fail to establish the conclusion.Originally posted by Alexander
Does philosophy still use logic today?
Is the use of logic, logical ?Originally posted by Alexander
You mean "facts and logic" method? OK.
Originally posted by Alexander
There is interesting distinction about meaning of a word "theory" in US and in elsewhere outside US. In US a hypothesis is often called a theory, but elswere else - only proven by logic/math hypothesis (and often only after proven by observation) is upgraded into a "theory" rank.
Originally posted by Fliption
I agree with Mentat. And so does anyone else that has been properly educated on the matter. Natural sciences are a branch of philosophy.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Natural Sciences aren't branch of philosophy. That's simply not true!
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophy is just a little concept.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Science came when humans were able to answer questions they asked. Philosophy served the purpose of pondering unintelligently the "why" before we could answer.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Even the section pf philosophy which is called LOGIC barely exists. Most of logic is expressed in pure math, and other parts are merely a guideline to writing papers that are "logical".
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Now science took the "why" and made it part of the essence of science; the scientific method.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophy is 100% dead. It's serves no purpose any longer now that math and science have done it's job so much better than philosophy ever could.
Originally posted by Tom
I thought the issue of "what philosophy is" was pretty straightforward. Why all this back-and-forthing?
Go to any website devoted to philosophy, and you will see that it is typically taken to be the following:
1. Logic
2. Epistemology
3. Metaphysics
4. Ethics
5. Aesthetics
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Tom - and I suppose asking the pope what catholicism is is a good idea?
Those tied up into mythology aren't the best judges of it!
2. But none of those things exist in reality, except Logic.
3. Logic of reality is completely captured by mathematics. Thus logic is purposely because math is more powerful and more universal, being not in a language at all
4. Philosophy originally asked why before it could answer it. Since science (the scientific method) not only asks why (and with standards of why) but it also makes a logical empirical and mathetmatical (if possible) attempt to answer it.
6. Because of this, those areas of philosophy have been overrun.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Tom - I got those definitions from Oxford, not a good idea to question them, as all other dictionaries are merely product sof the oxford.
Originally posted by Alexander
That is exactly what a philosophy is about - set of BELIEFS.
Science does not use beliefs.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - What one uses a given system for (religion etc...) isn't as important as what the system itself is for.
Those systems, religious mythology, pseudoscience etc..., aren't designed to give truth. The former is merely stories, and the latter is a lazy attempt at truth, but not one fueled by a true desire for it.
As far as understanding philosophy. While you may have used an old world definition, there's a reason definintions and terminology changes.
Your definition serves no real purpose now, as the idea of philosophy has been smashed by science.
As Alex put it, if philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, or the "why", then any fool can pursue something or ask why.
I can pursue becoming God, pursue ruling the world, becoming a billionaire, and ask any question no matter how stupid.
But this has no value, it doesn't matter. Philosophy doesn't matter.
It's miniscule in comparison to the power of science. The answers, not the pursuit but the reaching of the goal.
Furthermore, to say that philosophy asks why, doesn't point out it's not the only thing that asks why (and it's certainly not the best thing that asks why).
Science asks why, it's call a hypothesis. But while it asks it also answers. Philosophy just asks, asks anything at anyone, it is the pursuit, but makes no claim to reaching the goal - and it never does.
mentat said: "So what? "Religion" bares many contradicting beliefs "under it's wing" - as does science (just take the contraversy between "string" and "point-particle" theories, for example)."
Ah, but we have a difference. (a given) religion is merely confined to the pages of a book. Exactly as it says, so is in this world of this religion. If a contradiction exists, and the religion itself (the text) doesn't conclude the contradiction, the contradiction forever exists.
Science is WAY different. Science has contradictions. But science isn't the pages of a book, it isn't a publication finished at set in stone forever. Science is in reality. And science scrutinizes itself for the correct answers. It attempts to fix it's contradictions.
You're comparing the pages of a book, to the dynamic world of reality. It's like comparing a painting to a football game.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat...
1. You contradicted yourself. You stated that a reasoning system is determined by what it's used for. Yet you say philosophy is some old-world definition, and NOT what it is used for, today.
2. The meaning of philosophy has DRAMATICALLY changed. Not only has it changed but it's become completely DIFFERENT things.
3. Science is NOT a subset of philosophy. You are making the mistake equal to that of one assuming that because bats and birds have wings, they both come from a common ancestor.
4. Science took what philosophy attempted and did it better. Not only did it do it better, it did MORE. It asks the why AND answers it.
5. It's not an emotional issue.
No one here is debating (realistically) what science is.
What people are doing is not choosing weather the old-word definition of philosophy is right, and thus philosophy is dead
I don’t see how college-folk can have this view.Originally posted by LogicalAtheist;
3. Science is NOT a subset of philosophy. You are making the mistake equal to that of one assuming that because bats and birds have wings, they both come from a common ancestor.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Give us your definition of philosophy.
2. Science is absolutely positively NOT a sub-set of philosophy. At very very least philosophy is a subset of science.
3. Science ABSOLUTELY asks "why". To say science doesn't ask "why" is absurd. Re-think that immediately!
4. Philosophy as originally used as asking "why" but never EVER answering. It only asked. Then (still before science) people began to include a why. Because they had no scientific method, there why was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY opinion. THus we have the great philosophers who wrote books on THEIR OPINION of how things work.
5. Now we have science. It ASKS THE WHY, and also answers it under self-scrutinizing means.
Science took the why and made it better, gave it a proper universal method, and also answered it.
These are irrefutable!
Originally posted by Mentat
Science does not ask "why" questions. It only asks "what" and "how" questions.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Natural Sciences aren't branch of philosophy. That's simply not true!
Philosophy is just a little concept.
Science came when humans were able to answer questions they asked. Philosophy served the purpose of pondering unintelligently the "why" before we could answer.
Now science took the "why" and made it part of the essence of science; the scientific method.
Even the section pf philosophy which is called LOGIC barely exists. Most of logic is expressed in pure math, and other parts are merely a guideline to writing papers that are "logical".
Philosophy is 100% dead. It's serves no purpose anylonger now that math and science have done it's job so much better than philosophy ever could.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - I recall you saying you're young?
I have an entire education in science.
I used it everyday in my educational career thus far.
I am still getting an education (in neurological medicine).
I use science to answer the question of "why" everyday.
So does everyone in my class, all 20,000 of them.
Saying science doesn't ask why is below the belt. It's beyond questioning.
I do it every single day. And everyday (I am required) to get the answers to every why question I ask.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Fliption - Your insults only make me care about you less. You're on ignore.
But since I get the last word, I understand philosophy just fine. it isn't what you WANT it to be, it is what it is.
I am more than twice your age, and probably have triple or more the years of education.
One who questions my education gets blocked. Bubye forever!
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
4. Philosophy as originally used as asking "why" but never EVER answering. It only asked. Then (still before science) people began to include a why. Because they had no scientific method, there why was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY opinion. THus we have the great philosophers who wrote books on THEIR OPINION of how things work.
5. Now we have science. It ASKS THE WHY, and also answers it under self-scrutinizing means.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Yes, twice your age. Yes, triple your education.
Maybe you didn't take notice of what this topic was about.
I won't take the effort to open your blocked post again.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - I recall you saying you're young?
I have an entire education in science.
I used it everyday in my educational career thus far.
I am still getting an education (in neurological medicine).
I use science to answer the question of "why" everyday.