Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't care what philosophers did a hundred plus years ago.

Why should I care what scientists did a hundred plus years ago? Why should I give a damn about Newton? Because they matter to present day society, just like philosophers who wrote a hundred years back do.

Let's say I invent another magical field of study called Vowelology: the study of vowels. To prove how useful this field is, I'm going to ask you to answer your own question coherently without using vowels...

The only problem (and the logical fallacy) is that the original question asked you to compare a subjective (metaphysical) idea with a subjective idea using a subjective basis. You are asking to talk about something objective (vowels - physical) using a subjective basis.

Though I'll agree with you, vowels are important .

I meant university level philosophy, okay?

You assume that Locke, Burke, Hegel, Marx did not have a 'university level' philosophy?

Are we to be mired in the same political philosophical muck? Perhaps someone else with this derided 'university level' philosophy will come up with a new political system of ideas which may change things.

Nice one.

[Ramo]

Philosophy (as a field) is math without the rigor.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Yeah, its kinda like computer science eh? Any discipline that has to call itself 'science' isnt!

How is computer science being a field of science have anything to do with political science being a science?

You get a BSc for compsci, what do you get for polisci?

[Ramo]

Computer science isn't a science, just as engineering isn't a science.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why should I care what scientists did a hundred plus years ago?

You shouldn't, it's irrelevant to the debate. As are what philosophers did a hundred plus years ago.

I don't understand why this is so hard for you guys to grasp. I don't care about the past, I care about what the fields are doing in the present. The faculties of science are contributing back to the community, as a public university should be doing, today's philosophers who are paid off taxpayer's dollars aren't contributing back to the community. The best excuse for their existance I've heard is they get to debate ethics with eachother, because of course the common man cannot decide ethics -- we must rely on those philosophers to do it for us.

The only problem (and the logical fallacy) is that the original question asked you to compare a subjective (metaphysical) idea with a subjective idea using a subjective basis. You are asking to talk about something objective (vowels - physical) using a subjective basis.

The original question wasn't relevant at all, neither was mine -- that was the point.

Philosophy is used on the most basic level when arguing why democracy is better than a dictatorship, it says nothing about why we need to fund philosophy majors at public universities. I'm still amazed you would ask such a silly question, if I didn't know better I'd say you didn't read the thread.

You assume that Locke, Burke, Hegel, Marx did not have a 'university level' philosophy?

Oh, I'm sorry -- these people are modern philosophers?

Maybe I'm living in a different dimension than you are.

Are we to be mired in the same political philosophical muck? Perhaps someone else with this derided 'university level' philosophy will come up with a new political system of ideas which may change things.

Yes, I can't wait for the brilliant minds of philosophy majors at today's public institutions to magically invent a new form of government that will make everyone's life better.

You've taken too many philosophy courses Imran, feel free to climb back down to the real world whenever you're ready and we'll still welcome you back.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ramo
Computer science isn't a science, just as engineering isn't a science.

Would you consider it a form of applied math more than a science? Either way, it doesn't really matter, they're both real fields.

[Ramo]

Hmm, misread that.
Yes, I would.

[Asher]

You remind me of one of my friends who throws a hissy fit about Math being in the Faculty of Science at some universities.

[Ramo]

[Shi Huangdi]

What great asset to society does history provide? Or how about the study of Shakesperean literature? Or for a "real" science, how about Astronomy, how does the study of galaxies on the other side of the universe help us? And as I mentioned earlier, there is such as a thing as "blue sky" research that is researched for the purpose of knowledge and does not have potential to help the average joe? Heck, in science the stated aim is to better understand the laws and nature of the universe, not to provide technology improvements. The role of the university is to provide knowledge, not to look for technological output to raise our standard of living.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
What great asset to society does history provide? Or how about the study of Shakesperean literature?

However:
History: "If we do not know history, we are doomed to repeat it."
Shakesperean literature is overrated crap. I'm sure many people love it, I don't see a purpose to it with taxpayer's dollars. You wanna learn about Shakespeare, great, go form a studygroup. An argument could be made about impact to culture, though.

Or for a "real" science, how about Astronomy, how does the study of galaxies on the other side of the universe help us?

Is this a joke?
Astronomy is important because we can't live on this planet forever. Eventually we'll need to expand. We need to know what's out there, and mapping the stars is key to that.

Certainly assloads more useful than what the philosophy majors today are doing.

And as I mentioned earlier, there is such as a thing as "blue sky" research that is researched for the purpose of knowledge and does not have potential to help the average joe? Heck, in science the stated aim is to better understand the laws and nature of the universe, not to provide technology improvements. The role of the university is to provide knowledge, not to look for technological output to raise our standard of living.

The better understanding certainly helps the average joe, why do you think it does not?

The problem is, philosophy today doesn't promote or lead to better understanding, they intentionally muddle everything and make it more complex so they have things to do.

[Asher]

Oh, and I disagree with your generic "provide knowledge" purpose for university.

I believe the public universities exist as to give back to the communities. They provide a well-educated workforce to fulfill jobs which buoy the economy which benefits everyone, they also provide valuable research into areas that will affect people's lives. Even the most obscure Science research tends to have a purpose. The better understanding of the forces of nature and how the world works helps everyone.

Philosophy just doesn't cut it, and no one here has been able to illustrate what philosophy does for a public university. The closest someone has come is claim it helps people argue well (which isn't a very strong point when the Philosophy majors on here aren't very adept at it in the first place) or help set ethics guidelines and can theoretically create new government systems.

Does anyone else read that as grasping as straws to rationalize its existence?

[CyberGnu]

Agathon, Turing was a mathematician who late in his life pondered philosophical questions. Not a particularly good example on your part, is it?

Do you have any examples of actual philosophers who contributed to society without leaning on stuff they actually did prior to switching fields?

[Asher]

Turing is known more as the father of computer science and a mathematician than ever as a philosopher.

Another example of trying to take credit from other fields.

It's a shame I missed that post somehow by Agathon, it was a classic.

I really loved how he totally avoided the whole question about what philosophers do with AI. He mentioned the Turing Test and that's about it, which isn't the product of a philosopher.

BTW, I wonder if any of the philosophers "interested" in a Turing machine know anything about the mathematics behind it, or have ever constructed one (as per a theoretical computing course), or they simply dink around with the useless abstract concept of one? Do the philosophers use it to prove the computability of functions, do they know and understand things like pumping lemmas?

[Agathon]

Oh f**k you are worse than that Berzerker idiot.

How can you criticise philosophy as it is conducted in universities when you have on this thread continually shown yourself ignorant of what is actually done by professional philosophers and have posted numerous howlers on the topic? How are you supposed to be taken seriously on the issue?

It's standard practice to have some knowledge, however limited, of the subject you are talking about. A few people now, added to myself, who have actually done more than kiddies' formal logic, have explained to you some of what philosophy does, but you have chosen to ignore their statements in favour of posting fatuous pseudo-objections because that is all you seem capable of.

It is all very well to have a "right-wing-lets-turn-universities-into-polytechnics" attitude, but you should at least be informed on the subject before you wade in like an amateur. Call me a pedant, but I think it is reasonable to have some conception of what you are proposing to abolish. You have shown no such thing on this thread.

Your comments about Shakespeare are risible. What it shows is that you are one of the stupid tasteless people, the people that prefer to watch "Temptation Island" instead of the History Channel, the people for whom three chords are too many. People who make statements of such astonishing philistinism are to be ignored on the matter of tertiary education policy because they are incapable of understanding what it's for. In fact your situation is as if a tone deaf man had called for the scrapping of the music department. Tertiary education is for those who understand what Aristotle means when he remarks that human beings by nature desire to know. I'm betting that's not you.

Fortunately, for those in the philosophy game and frankly for those interested in the survival of Western Civilisation, the in-bred and oafish do not tend to be listened to by serious people - which is I suspect the root of your malice toward "book larnin'" - you can't understand it so you have to put it down in the name of the "common people".

Well I guess we horrible philosophy snobs ought to just leave it at that. After all a discipline that has survived 2500 years has pretty good staying power.

Oh well, back on the "ignore" list for you.