What is philosophy for?

[Tiberius]

The definition of a word can be defined quite clearly. Taking your example of life, we can define the word so that we can tell if something is alive or not. AWe can attach a list of things to a word that are testable in the real world.

Likewise, I could define "red" by the frequency of light. But what red actually looks like is not testable. I have no way of showing that the way I see red is the way you see red. But ultimately, it doesn't make any difference. So that is not testable. The wwavelength of red is something testable, but when you go into the philosophical realm and ask if we see it the same, it is untestable and makes no difference whether we see it the same or not.

So I still think that philosophica;l ideas are untestable in the real world, and therefore are not applicable to the real world.

 

[daniel777]

A description of what?

yes, in part.

what's this "real world" you keep talking about? do you know it? maybe the value of philosophy isn't in what it can show us about the "real world" but in what it can show us about ourselves. maybe knowing what is real isn't as important as knowing the limits of what we can know.

philosophy is description, how you choose to describe the world into categories and how you realize certain ideas. it's useful on both an analytical and existential level. you're even doing it now by taking a second order approach to the question of "what is science" also "what is reality and philosophy".

i've always thought scientific realism in the exclusion of philosophy was extremely simplistic in that science can't begin to "describe" or define itself. you're relying completely on philosophy in order to make your point, but do you even realize it? philosophy is description. philosophy is necessary because things can't describe themselves.

 

[ug333]

I realize this has been stated in other ways, but this is my 2 cents.

All of our decisions are based on some core axioms that we carry as individuals. I would argue that philosophy can be the study and understanding/refining of ones own axioms and applying logic and data on top of those axioms to reach a decision. This is very valuable and can be measured by the decisions the person makes.

All philosophy is necessarily based on axioms, and therefore no concrete proof can ever be attained as the underlying axioms are unprovable and "a matter of opinion". Any attempt to do just that is a complete waste. But the methods one can use to examine, understand, refine, and apply axioms are shared across different people.

 

[Verticordious]

I realize this has been stated in other ways, but this is my 2 cents.

All of our decisions are based on some core axioms that we carry as individuals. I would argue that philosophy can be the study and understanding/refining of ones own axioms and applying logic and data on top of those axioms to reach a decision. This is very valuable and can be measured by the decisions the person makes.

All philosophy is necessarily based on axioms, and therefore no concrete proof can ever be attained as the underlying axioms are unprovable and "a matter of opinion". Any attempt to do just that is a complete waste. But the methods one can use to examine, understand, refine, and apply axioms are shared across different people.

The one and only "core axiom" is reality. Reality is the world around us, anywhere where a shared experience occurs. Reality is the only objective source of knowledge we have, so if you ignore reality then you are left with nothing but subjective reasoning. Reality is therefore true by default, since it is the only form of shared experience and objective reasoning.

For this reason science is the only viable method of obtaining knowledge because only science observes and tests reality. Something must be observed to be true, because if truth did not require evidence then anything could be true. Truth would become meaningless if something could be true and untrue at the same time. Secondly, Things must also be tested in order to in order to be sure it does not conflict with something already understood to be true. If a conflict is found, then that conflict must be resolved before truth can be declared.

These basic principles of science apply to everything. No exceptions. Even interpreting the Bible, for example, uses these same basic premises. If someone were to come up and claim something in the name of the Bible you've never heard of before, the first thing you're going to is request evidence by asking where the Bible says such a thing. When that person points you to a particular passage of scripture, you are then going to test it by comparing to the original language, the context, to other things you know the Bible says, and other such tests that apply to language to see if it really says what the person claims it says.

So, ultimately, philosophy is nothing more than a faulty premise built on a faulty understanding of knowledge. Philosophy is not the observation or testing of reality, and therefore philosophy is unable to prove anything objectively. Philosophy is nothing more than people who have opinions about things, and they call these opinions "philosophical" in order to make themselves seem intelligent.

 

[The Nihilist]

The one and only "core axiom" is reality. Reality is the world around us, anywhere where a shared experience occurs. Reality is the only objective source of knowledge we have, so if you ignore reality then you are left with nothing but subjective reasoning.

These are philosophical claims. Specifically, they fall under epistemology.

 

[Verticordious]

These are philosophical claims. Specifically, they fall under epistemology.

Feel free to label it however you like, but observing and testing is the only way to obtain knowledge. For truth to exist in any meaningful way, there must be some way to objectively distinguish truth from untruth. If something could be both the way that it is and the way that it isn't at the same time, then the concept of truth would be complete nonsense. Observing and testing is what allows us to differentiate between the two. Simply claiming that there is some other way of determining truth without any sort of reasoning or support does not make it so.

 

[ug333]

Feel free to label it however you like, but observing and testing is the only way to obtain knowledge. For truth to exist in any meaningful way, there must be some way to objectively distinguish truth from untruth. If something could be both the way that it is and the way that it isn't at the same time, then the concept of truth would be complete nonsense. Observing and testing is what allows us to differentiate between the two. Simply claiming that there is some other way of determining truth without any sort of reasoning or support does not make it so.

I agree that philosophy doesn't move us any closer to any form of demonstrable truth or knowledge. It does allow us to examine our own thoughts and actions against our own ideals. Is that truth? No. Is it useful and do those things end up effecting the real world through our actions? Yes. This, combined with knowledge, can create in an individual what is sometimes referred to as wisdom.

For example: science is the only useful tool for deciding how a government action will affect society. But how government SHOULD affect society, and what society SHOULD be are questions of philosophy. There isn't a right answer, but that doesn't invalidate it as a meaningful discussion. Philosophy can't prove one better than the other, but it can help us compare and understand them, and it can give us more useful tools in discussing them. And it is its application in this area that has allowed it to impact our lives in very real ways.

 

[The Nihilist]

Feel free to label it however you like, but observing and testing is the only way to obtain knowledge.

Again, this is a philosophical claim. Interestingly, you cannot obtain this position purely through observation and testing, nor would observation and testing validate it.

Additionally, your position is wrong. Mathematics, for example, requires neither observation nor testing.

 

[Verticordious]

Again, this is a philosophical claim. Interestingly, you cannot obtain this position purely through observation and testing, nor would observation and testing validate it.

Additionally, your position is wrong. Mathematics, for example, requires neither observation nor testing.

How was my claim a philosophical claim? Because you say it is?

It is easy to observe and test that truth would be nothing but nonsense without observation and testing. If observation and testing is not the standard for knowledge, then what reason is there to not believe that red is not red, or that blue is not blue. How would you refute these nonsensical claims if not though observation and testing? If I can simply refute what someone says by saying the opposite, then what value does truth have?

Our observations and tests of reality prove that red is red, and that blue is blue. There has never been any observation of anything being something that it isn't. It is observed that things always are the way that they are, which is the origin of the law of identity. To suggest that something could be true and untrue at the same time violates what we observe and test about reality, which proves our need to differentiate between truth an untruth through observing and testing.

To Summarize: If you agree that things always require observation and testing to be true, than any attempt to observe and test a method of determining truth that does not involve observation and testing would be self-refuting. If you claim that things do not always require observation and tests to be true, then I simply refute your claims by stating the opposite.

 

[daniel777]

Feel free to label it however you like, but observing and testing is the only way to obtain knowledge.

how do you know?

For truth to exist in any meaningful way, there must be some way to objectively distinguish truth from untruth.

what does the existence of meaningful truth have to do with our understanding of it?

do you mean to say that science invalidates philosophy in that it invents truth rather than simply validating it?

If something could be both the way that it is and the way that it isn't at the same time, then the concept of truth would be complete nonsense.

and that something is itself and never not itself in the same respect and in the same instance is the biggest assumption in philosophy and logic.

Observing and testing is what allows us to differentiate between the two.

do they? if science did so, it would only be according to certain axioms and already held understandings. observation is one thing, but what constitutes a theory, a law, a hypothesis? how easily can we rely on an idea? can things contradict, and if we observe a contradiction is something wrong with our observation? should data collection rely purely on observation, or can unobservables be placed in a set in order to make sense of it, like physics sometimes does with mathematics? should all branches of science do that? are all the branches of science equal in authority? what about their terminology? is the best view of science pragmatic and instrumental (the value of a scientific idea is in it's usefulness, not the truth of it. truth is irrelevant), or is scientific realism the best view? all these are philosophical questions, and they govern how science is done and how the results are interpreted.

Simply claiming that there is some other way of determining truth without any sort of reasoning or support does not make it so.

do you understand that you're arguing against reason?

all knowledge of truth relies on abstract assumption.
science is a way to arrive at the knowledge of truth.
science relies on abstract assumption.

translates into

syllogism,
Barbara figure 1

AMP
ASM
____
ASP

can be defended formally and indirectly by:

AMP & ASM |- ASP

Line number: 1. assumption: 1 Proposition: AMP Justification: assumption.
Line number: 2. assumption: 2 Proposition: ASM Justification: assumption.
Line number: 3. assumption: 3 proposition: OSP Justification: assumption. (RAA)
Line number: 4. assumption: 2 proposition AMS Justification: SC
Line number: 5. assumption: 2,3 proposition: OMP Justification: 2,3, Bocardo
Line number: 6. assumption: 1,2,3 proposition: OMP & AMP Justification: 1, 4 Baroco & I
Line number: 7. assumption: 1,2, proposition: ASP Justification: 3, 5 RAA

i think that's right. all in all though. there's no way to prove Barbara since it's the most basic structure of syllogism. even syllogistic logic is based completely on assumption.

 

[Tiberius]

yes, in part.

Huh? I ask you what philosophy is a description of and you answer "yes"?

what's this "real world" you keep talking about? do you know it? maybe the value of philosophy isn't in what it can show us about the "real world" but in what it can show us about ourselves. maybe knowing what is real isn't as important as knowing the limits of what we can know.

The world external to ourselves. Philosophy can tell us nothing about that.

And yes, maybe philosophy can tell us something about ourselves, but as each person is unique, there can be no philosophical objectivity.

 

[Tiberius]

Again, this is a philosophical claim. Interestingly, you cannot obtain this position purely through observation and testing, nor would observation and testing validate it.

Additionally, your position is wrong. Mathematics, for example, requires neither observation nor testing.

If we try several different methods of obtaining knowledge. if the only valid knowledge you get is from testing, then that is a non-philosophical way of arriving at that conclusion.

 

[daniel777]

Huh? I ask you what philosophy is a description of and you answer "yes"?

your exact words were:
"A description of what?"

and what i did was commit a use mention error. it's when the use of a word is confused the the mention of the word. i did it to make the point that descriptions are essential. what words mean and do mean, that is essential to both communication and understanding. this is a very simplistic example of the use mention error, but it's actually used quite a bit in less obvious ways. if science is about answering questions, then philosophy is about framing questions and answers in a correct way so understanding can persist. without adequate description, there is no understanding. without description, there is no science.

The world external to ourselves. Philosophy can tell us nothing about that.

logic is a branch of philosophy. without logic, you couldn't understand the external world for sure. in fact, if you'redenying logic then , by definition,you're arguing an absurdity. do you deny that?

And yes, maybe philosophy can tell us something about ourselves, but as each person is unique, there can be no philosophical objectivity.

"objectivity" in what sense of the word? detached from bias or dependent from mind?

If we try several different methods of obtaining knowledge. if the only valid knowledge you get is from testing, then that is a non-philosophical way of arriving at that conclusion.

all knowledge that arrises from testing also rests on a philosophical assumption, even though it is a very basic one. it's the assumption that just because something happens the same way for a little while, it will always happen that same way every time. this is at the heart of scientific knowledge, but it can't ever be proven to be true by it. . .

. . . science also makes other assumptions. and external ideas like "scientific realism", those ideas that take a second order approach to science, are actually completely philosophical while also being completely unscientific. so, basically if we grant that:

1. science is the only way to knowledge of the truth.
2. 1. is not a scientific claim.
3. 1. is not known to be true.

**1 is unknowable just in the same way any other competing ideas are unknowable if science is the only granted justification for the legitimacy of truth claims. . . . but in this case, the idea that scientific realism to the exclusion of philosophy is true is even less legitimately held than its competing ideologies because it claims that science is the only justification for true knowledge while the claim itself is unscientific yet philosophical; it's a contradiction.

science, in itself, cannot prove science. nothing can describe itself. even philosophy, being description, has a hard time describing itself for that very reason. philosophy can't fully describe itself. it would be like asking to describe description. that's why we have terms like "metalogic, metaethic, and even metaphilosophy". in the end, everything is a dead end if you want to get to truth without making any assumptions. in my last post i stated that even syllogistic logic is based on assumption. all logic eventually is. all systems begin somewhere, because nothing can describe itself. all knowledge carries the burden of assumption.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The definition of a word can be defined quite clearly. Taking your example of life, we can define the word so that we can tell if something is alive or not. We can attach a list of things to a word that are testable in the real world.

But can you test whether the definition of the term "life" is in principle correct or not? Is there a definable essence to living things? That issue is a subject for the philosophy of biology, and they are the type of people who give the term "life" a more strict biological meaning. So, you being downstream of the philosophy may not sense the conceptual impact it may have on your everyday understanding of the term "life", but you are influenced all the same. You seem to think that you can do without philosophy, but implicitally accept or work with it's suggestions.

 

[Tiberius]

if we create a list of characteristics that life has which nothing else has, then being alive becomes a testable thing and not philosophical.

Something is alive if it grows, respires, consumes, excretes, reproduces, inherits and has some kind of control center, among other things.

Inherits in the sense of how we humans pass on traits to our offspring. Control center as in the nucleous of our cells. I am not aware of anything classified as non-living which has these characteristics.

 

[ug333]

if we create a list of characteristics that life has which nothing else has, then being alive becomes a testable thing and not philosophical.

Something is alive if it grows, respires, consumes, excretes, reproduces, inherits and has some kind of control center, among other things.

Inherits in the sense of how we humans pass on traits to our offspring. Control center as in the nucleous of our cells. I am not aware of anything classified as non-living which has these characteristics.

Didn't you just notice the circular reference there?

"if we create a list of characteristics that life has which nothing else has, then being alive becomes a testable thing..."

Where did the list of characteristics come from? Is life a useless label plucked from thin air, or was there a reason why the lines were drawn were they were?

Anyway, life in the sense of broad categorizations is somewhat interesting, however its application to individuals is far more nuanced and difficult. If someone is infertile they fail the above test, yet they are still considered alive because the whole of the species is considered alive and they are given a "pass" on that. What about someone who can't survive without machines? What about someone who is brain dead? Where that line is drawn between life and death gets difficult but is critical when applying law.

Do we assume life when we are in unknown territory? Do we allow responsible individuals to choose? Do we assume they are not alive? Once these decisions are made science can supply the data. But it can not clarify which one it "should" be. Nor is there a right answer, but it is an important decision that has to be made by a society.

 

[Tiberius]

That's a good point, and I'll admit the circular logic.

But philosophy is not an accurate way to tell.

 

[Verticordious]

and that something is itself and never not itself in the same respect and in the same instance is the biggest assumption in philosophy and logic.

How exactly does logic have anything to do with philosophy? Logic was formulated based upon observations and tests of the real world, and therefore logic is the result of science. We observe that things always behave certain ways, and therefore we have formulated laws to explain this behavior. Philosophy cannot come in after the fact and lay claims to logic. If philosophy is responsible for the laws logic, then please explain to us how philosophy went about defining them.

what does the existence of meaningful truth have to do with our understanding of it?

do you mean to say that science invalidates philosophy in that it invents truth rather than simply validating it?

Meaningful truth has everything to do with how we understand truth. A meaningless statement, by definition, cannot be understood. A meaningless statement describes something that cannot exist in reality, such as a square circle. Can you explain what a square circle is? Of course not, a square circle has no meaning because it cannot exist in reality.

If truth exists, then by definition it must exist in a meaningful way. Meaningless truth would be meaningless. Subjective truth results in meaningless truth because contradictions become possible, this making truth meaningless. With objective truth there is no longer the possibility of contradictions, and therefore truth now has meaning because it can refer to something that actually exists in reality without contradictions.

Thus logic disproves all non-scientific approaches to knowledge:

Logic proves that truth exists ("There is no truth" is a self-refuting statement if logic is true)
Truth must be objective in order to be logical (as I just explained in the last two paragraphs)
The only source of objective truth is reality (because reality is the only thing that is not influenced by human opinion)
Therefore observation and testing of reality is the only way to obtain truth.

all knowledge of truth relies on abstract assumption.
science is a way to arrive at the knowledge of truth.
science relies on abstract assumption.

There are no assumptions being made for science. I suppose, in a manner of speaking, you could say that science started out as an assumption, aka a theory, but once it was tested it changed from theory into fact. Science is the only method of discovering truth that has ever discovered any truth. If you want to challenge my syllogism above, and prove that philosophy has any validity, then please provide a single example of a discovery ever made by philosophy in the format I previously outlined:

Here's an example of a scientific discovery:
Discovery Made: Acetaminophen is useful for the treatment of migraine headache pain
How It Was Discovered: Random, placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical trial. 2 hours after ingestion, 52% of patients treated with 1g of Acetaminophen reported little to no pain, while only 32% of patients taking the placebo reported little to no pain. Average overall pain reduction reported by those who took the Acetaminophen was 82%, while those who took the placebo reported an average of 46% pain reduction.
Benefits of Discovery: People suffering from migraine headaches can treat the pain by ingesting a 1g dose of acetaminophen.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Meaningful truth has everything to do with how we understand truth. A meaningless statement, by definition, cannot be understood. A meaningless statement describes something that cannot exist in reality, such as a square circle. Can you explain what a square circle is? Of course not, a square circle has no meaning because it cannot exist in reality.

Would you say the assertion "All reality, observed and unobserved, is physical" is meaningful? It certainly seems to be a truth apt statement.

If truth exists, then by definition it must exist in a meaningful way. Meaningless truth would be meaningless. Subjective truth results in meaningless truth because contradictions become possible, this making truth meaningless. With objective truth there is no longer the possibility of contradictions, and therefore truth now has meaning because it can refer to something that actually exists in reality without contradictions.

I am not sure what you mean by "subjective truth". I thought that truth was correspondence between a statement and reality. If you mean that we can't simply invent truth as we see fit, then I agree.

Thus logic disproves all non-scientific approaches to knowledge:

I am not sure about that.

Logic proves that truth exists ("There is no truth" is a self-refuting statement if logic is true)
Truth must be objective in order to be logical (as I just explained in the last two paragraphs)

I will accept that true statements have to correspond to reality.

The only source of objective truth is reality (because reality is the only thing that is not influenced by human opinion)
Therefore observation and testing of reality is the only way to obtain truth.

But we cannot test whether all relaity, seen and unseen, is physical. Yet, we can assert it and it might be true. Mabe you should say that testability is necessary for knowledge, but I am sure that the statement "unseen reality is physical" could be true even if we cannot test it. If you mean by "obtain truth" we must know something to be true, we can know that "unobserved reality is either physical or it is not" without testing the statement scientifically.

There are no assumptions being made for science. I suppose, in a manner of speaking, you could say that science started out as an assumption, aka a theory, but once it was tested it changed from theory into fact. Science is the only method of discovering truth that has ever discovered any truth.

What about sensory knowledge, which is involved in science, but itself is not necessarily "scientific"? If I see rain, I know it is raining, but that will not get me a science degree, and does not make me a scientist. If science emerged somewhere over the last 1000 years, we could imply from your conclusion that nobody living more than 1000 years ago discovered any truth, which I imagine you will accept as false. Ergo, something needs to change.

If you want to challenge my syllogism above, and prove that philosophy has any validity, then please provide a single example of a discovery ever made by philosophy in the format I previously outlined:

Well I can't but that does not imply that philosophers cannot make true philosophical statements (for instance, the candidate to be examined: "unseen relaity is also physical".)

 

[The Nihilist]

How was my claim a philosophical claim? Because you say it is?

It is easy to observe and test that truth would be nothing but nonsense without observation and testing. If observation and testing is not the standard for knowledge, then what reason is there to not believe that red is not red, or that blue is not blue. How would you refute these nonsensical claims if not though observation and testing? If I can simply refute what someone says by saying the opposite, then what value does truth have?

Our observations and tests of reality prove that red is red, and that blue is blue. There has never been any observation of anything being something that it isn't. It is observed that things always are the way that they are, which is the origin of the law of identity. To suggest that something could be true and untrue at the same time violates what we observe and test about reality, which proves our need to differentiate between truth an untruth through observing and testing.

To Summarize: If you agree that things always require observation and testing to be true, than any attempt to observe and test a method of determining truth that does not involve observation and testing would be self-refuting. If you claim that things do not always require observation and tests to be true, then I simply refute your claims by stating the opposite.

Your claim is philosophical because you're talking about a theory of knowledge. The study of knowledge theory is called epistemology. Here's the link:Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're doing philosophy right now.