Mentioning Phil phD's

[CyberGnu]

Obiwan:

Frogger: Why don't you read the founder of scientific method, Descartes? His discourse on the method of philosophical and scientific inquiry examines some of your 'realism/anti-realism' questions.

Thanks for proving my point. "The scientific method" is credited to Galileo Galilei.

Descartes came along, wrote it up and you consequently credit him with inventing it.

"Those who can do, do. Those who can't, write about those who do".

(Although, it should be noted that Descartes did actually contribute to human knowledge as well.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you think Theology is Jon? It's Philosophy of a religion.

[Asher]

No scientist qua scientist can tell us the least thing about ethics.

I'm starting to wonder if philosophers even understand the very basics of what ethics are...

If this thread is indictation, you don't even understand that ethics is not something that you should be "teaching" to people under the realm of it being "knowledge".

I pose these questions to you philosopher types, then explain to me why this should be taught in some kind of classroom or pondered by some elitist snob:

Is it ethical to get plastic surgery?
Is it ethical to clone organs for the sake of donation?
Is it ethical to donate blood?
Is it ethical to receive blood transfusions?
Is it ethical to smoke when people don't want you to?

Medical ethics, you see.

[CyberGnu]

GePap:

Scientist of the current mode expand the realm of what is possible for man to do, by exploring the workings of the world we live in and its applications. Yet making something possibe is not the same as making it real: scientist made the Nuclear bomb possible, but it was only when other decided it should be built that it was made real. Those other's are not scientist, but people trained in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and all of them making their decisions based on sets of assumptions, codes, and so on formed by philosophers accross the ages.

Ahh, yes, we are all only loyal peons.

I think you've seen to many bad movies.

[Jon Miller]

and theology is currently very worthless compared to how most christians live their lives

(most christians don't beleive the same asthe theologians beleive, and while pastors who go through college become more in tune with theologians, they mostly preach vastly different sermons because most of the people don't beleive the same way)

actually I am not sure about most, I got this from my bible teacher (a theologian from harvard, I beleive) at my college (which was lutheran)

Jon Miller

[Asher]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ahh, yes, we are all only loyal peons.

I think you've seen to many bad movies.

It's actually pretty interesting from a psychological perspective, they've managed to warp their minds to think not only that they're important in the grand scheme of things, but they're the ones that direct the flow of humanity's progress.

[CyberGnu]

(most christians don't beleive the same asthe theologians beleive, and while pastors who go through college become more in tune with theologians, they mostly preach vastly different sermons because most of the people don't beleive the same way)

Joke from Notre Dame:

Q: Why can't we fire all the non-catholic professors?

A: Because then we don't have a theology department any more.

[CyberGnu]

Realized it only makes sense if you know Notre Dame is the worlds premier catholic university

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well philosophers ARE! Things get incorporated into society because of the beliefs of philosophers and social scientists. Science is merely pulled along (or halted). What, you think people were just more stupid in Europe during the Dark Ages?

Bow down before your rightful masters

[Jon Miller]

there weren't scientists during the dark ages, only philophers

Jon Miller

[CyberGnu]

Well philosophers ARE! Things get incorporated into society because of the beliefs of philosophers and social scientists. Science is merely pulled along (or halted). What, you think people were just more stupid in Europe during the Dark Ages?

Yeah, right... Things get incorporated into society because they impart an improvement of some sort. Technologial inventions often have to FIGHT the "philosophers and social scientists", yet they eventually become adapted.

It is the nature of progress.

[Jon Miller]

in the beggining there were philophers

these than plit into natural philophers, religious philophers, social philophers, and those who remained philophers

natural philophers begat the hard sciences
social philophers begat the soft sciences
religious philophers begat theology

those remained philophers are merely those who did not move on into doing sometihng useful

just as witch doctors use to be right occasionally (some herb would really do sometihng), so to were phiolophers occasionally right about something

now of course, we have science (hopefully at some point the soft sceinces will reach the level of the hard sciences)

Jon Miller

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
why should I listen to people who tell me how to beleive?

I will listen to those who think similiarly to I, or those I trust, ect

some random philopher doesn't mean anything to me ethics wise (a random catholic preist would mean more
, and I am not catholic)

Jon Miller

Who's talking about you? You can do what you like. I'm talking about public policy decisions where serious thinking is required or policies that hospitals have to institute in order to avoid being sued. This requires formal training in practical ethics.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well philosophers ARE! Things get incorporated into society because of the beliefs of philosophers and social scientists. Science is merely pulled along (or halted). What, you think people were just more stupid in Europe during the Dark Ages?

Bow down before your rightful masters

BS. Scientists think, engineers build and everybody else tries to take credit for it.

[Jon Miller]

exactly

Jon Miller