My philosopher father keeps trying to convince me that science will never come close to addressing any of the hard questions. But I maintain that it is dangerously close to addressing some of the ones the answers to which will be of most use to us. There's no sense in turning around now.
Okay, lets see what Hume did >complain about "human nature" >observe from wars and make obvious statements on human panic and decision >conveniently claims superiority What an opposition to science.
Lets see what Nietzsche had to offer >complains about science, claims superiority over it >edgy quotes concerning god >surprisingly bad at logic >questioning ethics and commenting on "human nature" He should have had mathfag friends. But he had some quotes I liked
Lets see what Plato had to offer >traditionalist commentary on psychology >social commentary That's about it really.
>>6664374 i don't think i interpreted nietzsche the same way as you
the way i thought of it was that people should just be wary that science doesn't address reality in the same way as a faith-based system does. the "masses" are easily seduced by the allure of science (see: tesla circlejerk) without questioning it, similar to religion
i don't think he ever meant science or religion were fundamentally better or worse
>>6664375 No it's really not. Science is not philosophy as it ignores the problem of induction. Logically, empiricism is unsound and has no place in philosophy, there is no reason it should work. Science ignores this attempts to use statistics to bridge the gap. It's distinct. Philosophy certainly led to science but it isn't philosophy anymore.
>>6664449 Science describes how matter behaves. Sometimes how can be ascribed to or satisfy a "why" question, but that doesn't hold true for vice versa; you can reach hows with whys of course (and arguably all hows lead to an irreducible question of why), but you cannot substitute a why for a how and satisfy the question.
>>6664470 Woodchucks cannot chuck wood. If they could they would be something else. You're making a category error, friend. If you had studied philosophy, you might have avoided such simple mistakes in basic logical reasoning.
>>6664503 I mean as in the rigorous formalism that is reason and logic. Without relying on empiricism "it works because look computers", that is for science.
>Humans understand induction innately, you hardly need philosophical proof to apprehend it, That's empiricism. "It works because it did last time". You can't employ empiricism to show that induction is valid because that's circular.
>>6664517 >We don't refer to chemists as philosophers. we also don't refer to biochemists as chemists or biologists, we call them chemists according to their specialization. however, that doesn't invalidate the fact that their field lies within both biology and chemistry.
>>6664547 We know induction is valid because we are not blind animals but human beings with the ability to reason and find patterns in nature.
No, it is not possible to logically prove the validity of induction because any proof is necessarily circular. You have successfully attained the knowledge level of a high school senior smoking pot in his friend's mom's basement. Good job.
This mindblowing revelation nonetheless does not invalidate any field of inquiry nor does it define the boundaries of different fields of inquiry. Which is your original claim, and a really fucking stupid one.
>>6664557 >We know induction is valid because we are not blind animals but human beings with the ability to reason and find patterns in nature. And yet superstition exists for the same reason. People believe in luck and gods because they think they see patterns. Believing is not knowing.
And now that I've destroyed your argument I see you've just retreated in empty claims. Back where you started.
>>6664567 Let's go back to where YOU started, which is that science cannot qualify as a form of philosophy because it relies principally (though not wholly) on induction. Please justify this outlandish claim.
>>6664480 >We proceed knowing that inductive reasoning is valid
Valid reasoning refers to form alone, and only refers to deductive arguments. Inductive arguments can never be valid, because it has nothing to do with formal structure. See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
I like how this asshole is claiming others to have skimmed wikipedia knowledge when he doesn't even know what logical validity is.
fJ?l?s?fi/ 1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. synonyms: thinking, reasoning, thought, wisdom, knowledge from Greek philosophia ‘love of wisdom’.
?wJzd?m/ the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise.
?s?J?ns/ the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
>>6664653 philosophy is running out of room the hope is to extinguish philosophy it's probably not possible but the more unknowable/unanswerable questions that are left are less and less interesting in the sense that answering them doesn't seem like it would lead to more control of our immediate environment
Science SOLVED the problem of induction. The scientific method tells us how to deal with unexpected observations. If a theory gets falsified, then we come up with a better theory. Exceptions or falsifications are still scientifically explicable with new and improved models of nature. In fact that's where science starts to get interesting.
>>6664342 Philosophy isn't remotely close to being dead. It seems like 90% of the people ITT completely overlooked Ethics, can't acknowledge that Logic was and continues to still be rooted in Philosophy, and that Philosophy today is largely contingent on the discoveries in other fields of academia.
>>6665440 ?Philosophy isn't remotely close to being dead. For more than 100 years there has been no new idea in philosophy. No progress, only stagnation. In the 21st century there are no noteworthy philosophers anymore, unless you count the stand-up comedian Zizek or the educators Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who merely repeat what others proved.
?90% of the people ITT completely overlooked Ethics Tell me again which ethical problems philosophy ever solved ... Ethics is a matter of personal opinion. Every person is equally (un)qualified to have subjective "muh feelings" beliefs. A philosopher is not better qualified to talk about ethics than a random stranger from the street.
?acknowledge that Logic was and continues to still be rooted in Philosophy Ever since logic has been formalized by mathematicians in the 19th century, it is a field of math. Understanding research in logic, let alone contributing to it, is impossible without profound knowledge of mathematics. Every logician nowadays started with a math degree.
>go to university >come out of philosophy 101 with B- >"yu cant kno nuffin! yu cant kno nuffin!" >"its not useful"
kill me i can't wait to see the day the anti-intellectuals like the ones you see ITT strip down institutions of higher thought and learning into a glorified vocational school for engineers and plumbers.
>>6666931 It's not about a standard. It's about the idiocy of having a (strong) opinion on something you are relatively ignorant about. It's like having a strong opinion about the politics in the middle east and not even knowing the difference between Iraq and Iran.
?ethics Philosophy cannot tackle ethics any better than a random person on the street can. Ethics is a matter of subjective opinion. Hiding behind pseudo-deep buzzwords doesn't change the fact that whatever ethical stance you're promoting is based on nothing but "muh feelings".
?politics Politics have nothing to do with philosophy. Politics are dictated by laws, contracts, economics and (hopefully) common sense.
?epistemology Epistemology is as dead as it can be. We have math and we have the scientific method. Those are the strongest tools of gaining knowledge. Ever since their invention there has been no new progress in epistemology. Modern epistemology doesn't even deserve its name anymore because it's literally creationist tier "u cannot know nuthin" anti-intellectualism.
>>6666911 >i can't wait to see the day the anti-intellectuals like the ones you see ITT strip down institutions of higher thought and learning into a glorified vocational school for engineers and plumbers. >plumbers
Those who promote STEM would like to thank you all for your participation. Your cooperation has been invaluable to us in our efforts towards creating a New World Order. By choosing Math and Science degrees, you have practically eliminated yourselves from society, and the gene pool. Your sacrifices will not be forgotten. Every time we drop a few dollars in your tip jars as we get out coffee, we will think back on what you gave up for the betterment of humanity.
>Philosophy cannot tackle ethics any better than a random person on the street can.
What do you mean by saying this exactly? Can you give me a reason why a Ph.D. holder in Physics is more qualified to speak about Physics than Joe the Plumber from Houston, TX? Can you ~truly~ not think of any reason of why a professor of Ethics is more qualified to speak about Ethics as opposed to Joe the Plumber? Seriously?
>Politics have nothing to do with philosophy. >common sense.
This is precisely the anti-intellectual garbage I would expect from a pop-sci board. And, not to make you blush, but an entire field of enquiry known as "political philosophy" has existed for quite some time now, with relevant (contemporary) and considerable (Nozick, Rawls) contributions made in the past 50 years. Please, tell me what "common sense" is. Also, please explain to me why your current government establishment is just given naturalism/empiricism. You're ludicrous.
>Epistemology is as dead as it can be. We have math and we have the scientific method. Those are the strongest tools of gaining knowledge. Asserting that empirical knowledge is all that we definitely know is willful ignorance.
>Modern epistemology doesn't even deserve its name anymore because it's literally creationist tier "u cannot know nuthin" anti-intellectualism.
Quoting Jaden Smith and /b/ to prove a point. I really hope this is bait, for your sake.
Philosophy is less about finding "concrete answers" than it is about analyzing arguments. Philosophy has discovered no "truths," it's only the pursuit of it and that in and of itself will not answer questions which you desperately want answered. It's one of the most basal fields (along with Mathematics) of inquiry but it seems that the average layperson on a popsci board only knows enough about Philosophy that Neil deGrasse Tyson told them.
where the hell do you think laws come from in the first place, stone tablets carved by ancient cavemen? over a million laws have been written in the last decade. you violate 7 of them a day on average without even knowing it.
>>6667095 ?Can you give me a reason why a Ph.D. holder in Physics is more qualified to speak about Physics than Joe the Plumber Because science requires education. While doing a science degree, you'll learn a shitload of things, becoming progressively more abstract and complicated. Most people do not have the required intelligence to understand them, and even those who do have the intelligence still need to invest a lot of time to study the actual theories. Philosophy on the other hand, ethics in particular, is just a matter of subjective opinions. Everyone is equally qualified to have his own emotional preferences, e.g. "I like this thing and I dislike that thing". There is nothing abstract about ethics and it is amenable to every child. Pic related is a good summary of Kantian ethics for example.
?an entire field of enquiry known as "political philosophy" has existed for quite some time And it is and remains entirely useless to actual politics. Political philosophy consists of moronic and utterly unrealistic utopia fantasies, so cringeworthy that nobody in their right mind would ever seriously consider to implement them. When politicians make decisions, they consult with experts on law, experts on media, experts on economy, but not with philosophers. Philosophers have zero influence on politics. Your anti-social ivory tower is not compatible with reality, kid.
?tell me what "common sense" is If you don't know what it is, then you're not a functional human being. Do you still wear diapers?
?Asserting that empirical knowledge is all that we definitely know I never made this assertion. How about you learn to read my posts and address the actual points instead of willfully misinterpreting them to fit your fedora'd straw men, dimwit?
?less about finding "concrete answers" than it is about analyzing arguments. Everyone can analyze arguments. It requires no qualifications other than basic literacy. Thanks for proving how redundant philosophy is.
>>6667109 ?where the hell do you think laws come from in the first place
I tell you where they don't come from. They don't come from philosophers. There is a very strict procedure described in your country's constitution which tells you how laws are to be made. And I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that this paragraph of the constitution does not mention philosophy.
Most master tradesman I know are happy to be doing hands-on, productive, skilled work for $80,000+ a year. I'm not saying that's loads and loads of money compared to what I'm sure a lot of STEM majors make, but it isn't nothing and it's enough to live on happily.
You know a lot of skilled tradesmen that hate their jobs or something? Because I don't.
>>6667127 >Because science requires education. While doing a science degree, you'll learn a shitload of things, becoming progressively more abstract and complicated. Most people do not have the required intelligence to understand them, and even those who do have the intelligence still need to invest a lot of time to study the actual theories.
Bait, and not even good bait. Are you asserting that discussion of Ethics requires no intelligence? No years of studying? By your reasoning everyone otherside of the sciences is a fraud.
> Everyone is equally qualified to have his own emotional preferences, e.g. "I like this thing and I dislike that thing". There is nothing abstract about ethics and it is amenable to every child. Pic related is a good summary of Kantian ethics for example.
>Nothing abstract in Philosophy >Later proceeds to tell me that Philosophy is not applicable to the reality.
Ethics is more than just discussion though, that's the whole point. And, in asserting that "everyone is equally qualified to have his own emotional preferences," you're engaging in philosophy. (Just really shitty philosophy, mind you, because you can't justify your claims).
>so cringeworthy that nobody in their right mind would ever seriously consider to implement them.
This, folks, is the result of education systems failing. Being THIS historically ignorant is utterly criminal. Plato, John Locke, John Rawls, John-Paul Sartre, Thomas Paine, etc. etc. etc.. You should be ashamed of yourself that you can't admit other fields of inquiry make considerable contributions too, and just because they're less tangible than those in Chemistry doesn't mean they're any worse.
>If you don't know what it is, then you're not a functional human being. Do you still wear diapers? Didn't answer my question. You have given no answer and no justification.
>I never made this assertion. Sorry, I clearly meant to write both empiricism and rationalism as you mentioned Mathematics.
here here. science has been held hostage for far too long. it's time to tell the world that science is a pack of lies. Einstein told us that there were no laws of physics, not even a credible theory in the lot of them. they keep selling us lies to support their lies, and robbing the youth of a proper education.
>>6667185 >Philosophy >Feels You know, when I see those god-forsaken threads about IQ on this board, I always ask myself how they get so many replies and why anyone gives a shit. Now that I see the immense insecurity in this post and in this thread, I understand better.
>>6667168 ?Are you asserting that discussion of Ethics requires no intelligence? It really doesn't. Did you take a look at the pic I posted? Every child can talk about ethics. It really is a matter of nothing but personal emotional preferences. Do you like something? Then it's ethical. Do you dislike something? Then it's unethical. Hiding behind huge buzzword doesn't change this.
?you're engaging in philosophy. If you have to relabel every rational though as "philosophy", then you just rendered the very concept of "philosophy" obsolete and redundant. If everyone is a philosopher, then why even have this word? Thanks for underlining how dead philosophy actually is.
?Plato, John Locke, John Rawls, John-Paul Sartre, Thomas Paine None of them had any influence on politics whatsoever. Plato's ???????? always was an autistic laughing stock throughout history. A bizarre utopia by a quixotic dreamer, doomed to be ridiculed and never implemented for obvious reasons. The others in your pseudo-intellectual name dropping list weren't even sufficiently influential to be known or associated with any theory.
?Didn't answer my question. You have given no answer and no justification. Your question was either non-serious or an expression of a deficiency so severe that no answer could help you. It's like you asked me how to get laid. If you're an adult and never learned it, then it is highly unlikely that you ever will. Learn to live with your defect.
?Sorry, I clearly meant to write both empiricism and rationalism as you mentioned Mathematics. And your point is still a retarded straw man unrelated to my post.
>>6667159 Sorry, I'm not sufficiently autistic to share your kindergarten humor of "lol lol every month except frebruary has 30 days xD, am I being smrat yet??".
>>6667220 >what does science have to do with the days in a month? dude, months are so obsolete, pagan worshiping shit. we should convert to a metric year system 10 months of 10 days of 10 hours of to minutes of 10 seconds
>>6667214 >Do you like something? Then it's ethical. Do you dislike something? Then it's unethical.
And that is a view discussed in Philosophy known as Emotivism, a view which has its defects. Who's hiding behind buzzwords? Philosophers use vocabulary like this to denote a metaethical theory, just like Calculus is used to denote a branch of Mathematics. In hating philosophy, you're only a philosopher.
>If you have to relabel every rational though as "philosophy", then you just rendered the very concept of "philosophy" obsolete and redundant.
Explain. Philosophy is concerned with the most basic forms of understanding of any plausible field, not necessarily "every rational thought." That is what I would call "reasoning." Philosophy is a study, not an action.
>None of them had any influence on politics whatsoever. I don't even know how to respond. If you assert that John Locke has had NO INFLUENCE ON POLITICS WHATSOEVER, you're fooling yourself.
No, my point has nothing to do with a strawman, I was just insulting you as you were insulting me. I can just as easily claim that you're using a strawman.
>>6667241 >Literally everyone has heard that stupid joke in kindergarten are you saying that you forgot the joke? if everyone knows that there are 30 days in 11 of the months, then why did you answer "1" instead of 11. did you forget to carry the 1?
?Who's hiding behind buzzwords? You. And you're using your own buzzwords incorrectly. How about you learn the difference between emotivism and expressivist nihilism, numbnut?
?Philosophers use vocabulary like this to denote a metaethical theory Let me quote Sam Harris: >Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy. There are two reasons why I haven't done this: First, while I have read a fair amount of this literature, I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
?Philosophy is a study, not an action. Then you were wrong in accusing me of doing philosophy. When I descriptively state that philospohy is dead, then I'm not studying it, I'm merely presenting a fact.
?If you assert that John Locke has had NO INFLUENCE ON POLITICS WHATSOEVER John Locke seriously assumed humans were reasonable, tolerant and cooperative. How fucking hard can someone fail to understand human nature?
>>6667252 The very-most basic criticism is that Emotivism ultimately collapses into a state of subjectivism wherein there are no truth-values. For instance, making the ethical judgment that eating animals is morally wrong is ultimately just your intuitive emotional response of "Ew, bad." Emotivism is not a very good justification of moral relativism.
>You. And you're using your own buzzwords incorrectly. How about you learn the difference between emotivism and expressivist nihilism, numbnut? We're not talking about nihilism "numbnuts"
> I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind.
Okay, so his work is oriented to finding scientific knowledge. I can't say I know exactly what Harris means by "logical implications," but he is merely taking the assumptions of empiricists, that's all. Is that "wrong." No. But it has NOTHING to do with philosophy.
>Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
Such le funnie meme xD
>John Locke seriously assumed humans were reasonable, tolerant and cooperative. How fucking hard can someone fail to understand human nature?
That has precisely nothing to do with his influence on the thoughts of America's founding fathers. Stop changing the topic.
>Then you were wrong in accusing me of doing philosophy. When I descriptively state that philospohy is dead, then I'm not studying it, I'm merely presenting a fact.
No, I was not wrong. You were considering metaethical theory, the most basal form of study of Ethics.
>>6667295 ?Emotivism ultimately collapses into a state of subjectivism wherein there are no truth-values. non sequitur
?For instance, making the ethical judgment that eating animals is morally wrong is ultimately just your intuitive emotional response of "Ew, bad." 1. Eating animals isn't wrong. I enjoy eating meat. 2. You just confirmed emotivism.
?Emotivism is not a very good justification of moral relativism. Nobody claimed it was.
?We're not talking about nihilism Of course we were. Why do you even bother defending philosophy when you don't even know its most basic terminology?
?But it has NOTHING to do with philosophy. Sam Harris is a philosopher.
?Such le funnie meme xD U wot m8? In that quote Harris gives pretty solid reasoning. Can you address his argument with more than shitposting?
?You were considering metaethical theory I did not make any philosophical claims. I only stated facts.
>>6667315 >non sequitur nah, after emplaining what Emotivism is and your not understanding it you just have poor reading comprehension or low intelligence (or, better, you're just "trolling"). Before you want to have a proper conversation, familiarize yourself with some basic concepts, thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism
>You just confirmed emotivism. LE NON SEQUITOR XD IM SO SMART
>Emotivism is not a very good justification of moral relativism. Emotivism (arguably) implies moral relativism.
>Of course we were. Why do you even bother defending philosophy when you don't even know its most basic terminology? Trolling, or fucking retarded? You brought up Kant's categorical imperative, then you brought up emotivism. Firstly, they have NOTHING in common. Kant's categorical imperative is used to provide a basis for moral absolutism, whereas emotivism has more to do with moral relativism. You stated this: "Do you like something? Then it's ethical. Do you dislike something? Then it's unethical." That is NOT nihilism. Nihilism is the rejection moral truth-values. Since you don't have a fucking clue and can't make the most basic distinction in all of metaethics between absolutism, relativism, and nihilism, here's a good starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics
>Sam Harris is a philosopher. Sam Harris is a commercial author. You might as well call Rush Limbaugh a philosopher. This point is irrelevant.
>U wot m8? In that quote Harris gives pretty solid reasoning. Can you address his argument with more than shitposting? No, Harris was desperately trying to be funny. >boredom in the universe please explain his "solid reasoning" and how it's relevant, because clearly i'm too fucking retarded as Mathematics and Physics major to figure it out.
>I did not make any philosophical claims. I only stated facts. Cute attempt at trying to be a smartass, but i don't care for your humor, only your reasoing, sorry.
>>6667346 ?Before you want to have a proper conversation, familiarize yourself with some basic concepts Oh god, the irony is killing my sides. The wikipedia you linked explicitly states that emotivism is only concerned with ethical claims. It doesn't make any statement about claims outside of ethics, as you suggested when wrongly invoking subjectivism. How low is your IQ?
?Emotivism (arguably) implies moral relativism. No, it doesn't. Please learn what these words mean.
?then you brought up emotivism I didn't. You did. You mistook my expressivist nihilism for emotivism. How ignorant are you?
?Firstly, they have NOTHING in common. 1. Nobody claimed they did. 2. They do have something in common. They are both located within meta-ethics.
?whereas emotivism has more to do with moral relativism. Your ignorance is cringeworthy.
?Nihilism is the rejection moral truth-values That's what I did. By demonstrating how ethical claims are just another way of saying "muh feelings", I proved that the notion of logical truth values makes no sense for them.
?you don't have a fucking clue and can't make the most basic distinction in all of metaethics This coming from the same guy who doesn't even know the difference between emotivism and relativism. Top fucking lel.
?Sam Harris is a commercial author. Sam Harris has a degree in philosophy.
?No, Harris was desperately trying to be funny. Is humor another thing you don't understand, autist?
?please explain his "solid reasoning" and how it's relevant He explains that the overuse of empty buzzwords is not the right way to tackle ethics. By doing so he confirms what I previously said ITT. Ethics means talking about "muh feelings" and philosophers are not more qualified to do it, just because they use words like "deontology" or "utilitarianism".
>>6667051 Ethics as a field is a mess though. It's been close to 100 years since anyone seriously tried to argue for ethical standards existing a priori, and without that 'ethics' becomes the study of the properties of ethical theories. However, such study requires a formalized notion of ethical theory so that meaningful ways of comparing ethical theories can be devised. Nobody has even attempted to do that. Without a framework of comparison ethics really is just "muh feelins".
Politics is now studied from within political science. The more abstract aspects of it which are less politics and more the study of the systems of human interaction again suffers from the same problem as ethics.
Epistemology is interesting, but I'd be willing to bet that if it was formalized there would be a rather simple proof that "you can't know anything unless you make of an assumption of X form" (it would most likely take the form of an independence for some class of assertions) with some nice categorization of what "X form" means. And then a further proof that for any theory embeddable within that one the same results hold. However, again, from what I've seen philosophy has not even tried to go down this path.
IMO for a field so steeped in skepticism and unknowability philosophers have made little effort to provide the kind of unambiguous communication necessary for real study of their ideas.
Why were all the greatest philosopher's heavily invested in science if science is the bane of philosophy?
Philosophy poses a question. The question is argued attempting to whittle it down to whatever truths it can produce, then we science the fuck out of those truths.
Logic is of the highest regard to philosophy, without logic an argument finds no truth since logic itself is one of the greatest and most concrete of truths. Plato put math on a fucking pedestal.
Fuckwits arguing god or ideals will stumble over truths in their attempt to justify something, the more liberal the philosopher, the more obfuscated the truth and the farther from logic it becomes. It often leads to hysteria and stupid idle arguments on message boards of people who have a vast amount of knowledge and little to do with actually thinking a little bit. Like arguing if 0.999999999999=1
Philosophy is the artistic half of truth, where science is the logical calculating half.
>>6664374 >Nietzche >some edgy quotes concerning god >implying Nietzche actually gave a shit about God and didn't mean deeper meaning in general. >fundamentally believes science will answer a lot of the philosophical questions of his time but will be bombarded by people who try to confuse others with big fancy words and convoluted ideas.
>>6664377 Confirmed for actually reading Nietzche. Good fucking job anon, you're better than most anons here.
I'm a little worried by how some leading physicists treat some of theoretical physics like string theory and dark matter as though it's objective reality.
I understand there's a practical need, in order for theory to be consistent across experimental data, that we imagine these possible scenarios.
The idea that our spiral galaxy contains a donut of dark matter or that particles can be modeled as 1D vibrating strings are practical tools born out of a need to explain discrepancy between observed phenomena (experimental data) and theory.
But we simply shouldn't pretend it's OK to presume our current model to be objective reality. Especially when aspects of the model are virtually unfalsifiable. In most sciences, we'd simply say, "I don't know, but we have this idea that has decent predictive power in practice". Hawking says, "this is the best model we have; we can't be very certain about it, but because it's the most fitting idea we've had thus far, it's OK to assume it's objective truth".
>>6667776 Superrationality always gives the "right" answer because it's the most complete possible way of reasoning to get to the right answer. For example, in the prisoner's dilemma, if the person you're playing against isn't superrational, the superrational thing for you to do is to play Nash rationally.
>>6664374 >Lets see what Nietzsche had to offer >>complains about science, claims superiority over it Actually later in life he changed his view and became much more respectful of scientist. He said something like "the scientist is a higher form of man than the artist".
>>6668494 However you pre-suppose that a theory of ethics has a well defined utility function. In the process of choosing the utility function you have already determined a large part of the ethical theory itself.
Superrationality also seems to choke on incomplete information. That is to say that if the utility function itself where unknown, and other players strategies unknown, it's results are much less meaningful. Dishonest signals would also seem to hit a superrational player pretty hard.
More importantly though your point was that superrationality--given enough information--can produce optimal play. Regardless of the truth value of that assertion, superrational ethical theories are still only one of the many types of ethical theories. And the study of the class of all ethical theories and their properties (and especially the making of assertion quantified over all ethical theories) requires a logical framework for the complete expression of ethical theories that any theory can be formulated from within. Only when that prerequisite has been met can the truth value of assertions such as "always gives the 'right' answer" be determined.
>>6668218 >objective reality >in a philosophy thread Did miss the part of the thread were they were arguing about the validity of induction. Before you go talking about an "objective reality" how about you prove there is a "reality" at all.
Why do you presuppose that there is a opposition anyway? Obviously philosophy advances in its question alongside scientific discoveries. That holds for Plato as well as it does for Wittgenstein or anybody else really. And to say that a philosopher is not qualified to answer questions in physics or whatever is just plain stupid since it is no matter of intelligence but of learning.
>>6668934 >the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability
>>6668889 The utility function *isn't* clear for asymmetric superrationality because the choices of individuals influence the choices of R-gods influence the choices of God, who influences the choices of individuals, so there's a feedback loop. The "right" decision is only clear for symmetric games, but it gets to be clearer and clearer as time goes on for asymmetric games, and you can see this in the way we've progressed ethically on the whole throughout history. This does make it hard to see how the utility function behaves, where the maxima are, and whatnot.
However, superrationality is precisely the most you can do for an ethical (decision-making) framework. If you temporarily disregard metaphysical notions, ethics just becomes a matter of maximizing net utility over time. The way you do this is to reason in the standard Nash rational utilitarian way but with the new understanding that your choices are sometimes correlated with the choices of other players. This reasoning is both necessary and sufficient; there is no other valid way of reasoning about it correctly. Maybe it would help if you gave me some examples of what you mean by other ethical theories so that I could debunk those one by one.
Superrationality isn't just some sort of strategy. It's simply a truth about decision making in all games.
>>6669383 I don't see any flaws with your argument. And there may well be extensions of it to cases where the game itself is not well defined.
The point I'm making is that proving "there is no other valid way of reasoning about it correctly" requires an actual proof, rather than an a proof sketch without formalism. The reason I didn't give examples was to shift focus away from any specific system and towards 'all systems' and the study of which types of systems satisfy which properties. ie which ethical systems have a categorical imperative, the ways in which utility functions are defind, and even the presence of a utility function itself.
>>6669707 Well, I figure we're in a game theoretic context because ethics is about rational decision-making given that you want to maximize utility everywhere over all time.
So then it's a game theory question. It's about reasoning rationally about games. You start with symmetric games and work up to the general case, which includes asymmetric games.
For a symmetric game, you're looking for equilibria. You have Nash equilibria, but Nash-rationality isn't really rational at all, because it neglects that fact that one player's behaviour can correlate with another's. When you take that into account, you get superrationality. It generalizes to asymmetric games as shown in that post.
>>6664375 Wait, have you people on this board really convinced yourself that this is not true?
>>science is a wholly contained subset of philosophy This should be obviously true. The scientific method assumes certain things. Then it has a process for checking itself and makes new assumptions based on whatever new data it collects. The idea of making assumptions is contained in philosophy. The idea of a process of any kind is contained in philosophy. The idea of any kind of logic is contained in philosophy. There is no separating science from philosophy. Philosophy attempts to describe and explain everything. Science is a way of describing and explaining the natural world. Therefore science is a part of philosophy. This is really easy.
>>science cannot kill philosophy without killing itself I don't know what this means.
Philosophy will only die when computers not only exceed the brain, but can accurately simulate mass human interaction
Philosophy allows us to discuss things we are unable to properly study scientifically. Which mostly boils down to human behavior in our day and age. Sure there is a scientific approach to human behavior but it is woefully inadequate and usually only comes up with results that everyone already knows from basic philosophy.
>>6670130 There's some context here. A lot of professional physicists are logical positivists, though a lot of them don't know or care what that means and hate to be associated with philosophical movements anyway. That means that when you ask them how the universe began, to use probably the most common example, they'll say that the question is meaningless because it can't be resolved by the scientific method.
Positivism was created by a bunch of physicists and philosophers of science. It became logical positivism as the result of formal logicians and computation theorists like Russell, Godel, and Turing in the first half of the 1900s. It's the simplest philosophical system for a working physicist to accept because it implies that changes of coordinate frame or gauge are never significant and that you can thus shift your metaphysical point of view as necessary to accommodate your calculations and observations. This point of view trickled down into the other sciences from physics because 20th century physics was the most complex and rigorous of the sciences. That explains the anti-philosophy attitude you see in all science forums. Logical positivists think metaphysics is bunk, or at least they treat it as bunk for all purposes, because they only concern themselves with making observations and applying the scientific method.
I personally think logical positivism is too strong a requirement because I believe you can make inferences about the nature of reality that don't depend on observations but that still have to be true in a sense. Sort of like how a square in flatland can infer that it can't have a digestive tract passing straight through it the way our digestive tracts pass through us because then it would be cut in half.
I'm seeing a lot of confused comments in this thread. Philosophy is not in any real "competition" with science, and even if it were, why would one of them "killing" the other mean good fortune for the latter? They need and support each other. For most of its history, the pursuit we now call science was "natural philosophy" because it was just that - a field of philosophy. It exploded soon after empiricism became the preferred method of inquiry into natural laws (because it happens to work rather well, as you know). Technology and global commerce are the most powerful shaping forces in the world today, and science makes both of them happen, leading to outstanding financial opportunity. Philosophy makes neither of them happen, (often, it actually hinders them), so it shouldn't be surprising when many young people flock to the sciences while comparatively few choose to study philosophy. Thus, from a student's perspective, it may appear as though the scientific institution has supplanted or appropriated philosophy when in reality the one has grown huge while the latter has simply stayed the same size. There isn't EVER a surge of philosophers, but that doesn't mean the field is dying. Look at your school's course listings. You'll probably find a class called "Philosophy of Science" which nicely demonstrates this relationship between both fields.
>>6667263 Nice b8, m8. Given that scientific thought has served us well enough to build the modern world, that this man provides no empirical evidence (which is the literal definition of science, not those strawman assumptions that any scientist would be glad to see disproven, given the evidence). So get your Spirit Science ass outta here.
>>6671414 I'm not going to bother with a good answer. The short answer is that logical positivists were repeatedly #REKT in public debates and publications. To the point where LP isn't taught in science classes or in philosophy classes, except as a historical footnote. Therefore, almost no one who would understand what the word means is a LP, therefore it is considered dead.
Philosophy is dead in the sense that is not a field of its own as someone would say they studied physics and specialised in one of its branches. It is embedded into many carreers in some sort of way but ir rises from the subject instead of being tought appart and used.
An example would be the interpretation of the wavefunction collapse. It is philosophy, but no one had to get a degree in socrates´ rules on how to sound smart and snobist while talking to reach a conclusion. It came from a total scientific perspecive in this aspect.
>>6673670 That may be true, but his assertion that Nietzsche should have had mathfag friends is completely true. If he had been introduced to mathematical modes of thought and formalism when he was first formulating his ideas I have no doubt he would have produced some really interesting shit. Not to mention that it would have been much more difficult for nazi edgemasters to hijack his ideas.
>>6676433 The dialectic method cannot be valid or invalid. It is useful in some situations for some purposes, depending on the intentions and requirements of the participants.
It's not amenable to our current level of science in the same way that sociology and economics aren't. Discussion between humans is beyond our ability to test in clear ways with controlled variables.
I could have helped you understand this same concept (assuming you understand it now) by asking you questions about what you think validity means, how you think it applies to the dialectic method, what you think about how science works, and so on. Eventually, you would hopefully see the ways in which validity doesn't apply as a concept to the dialectic method, and how science doesn't have the tools to address it right now. If that led you to a more complete and coherent internal system of understanding, then it might be useful for your future understanding of other related concepts. That's one example of the potential usefulness of the dialectic method.
>>6676547 My point was badly stated. Let me revise.
Let us model "understanding" as a lattice. The points of said lattice being all possible levels of understanding. And with one point being greater than (or equal to) another if it is at least as correct on every matter. Then, human understanding can be represented by a set of points in this lattice.
The result of the dialectic between two points is then clearly their join. The dialectic method is then sufficient for the spread of information, and the refinement of existing information.
However, if one considers the "sum total of human knowledge" (the join of all points in the set of humans) it is readily apparent that there can be no increase in humanities total knowledge as a result of the use of the dialectic method.
This problem could be fixed through a well defined method for generating alternative positions, however any such method's first step would necessarily be to recognize the deficiencies in your current position. And if you can already do that much, the analytic method is a much cleaner way of progressing your knowledge than constructing an entirely new position and then synthesizing it with the original one.
Thus, although the dialectic method is an effective method of exposition. It is wholly unsuited to the task of inquiry.
Thread replies: 284 Thread images: 17
Thread DB ID: 6921
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.