Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


I don't see it. Could you enlighten us?

Typical.

if we really want to know why a certain scientific theory is right we have to look at the reasons why and the reasons for that, and the reasons for that and so on. In the end you end up asking philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge. In other words, questions about realism and anti realism, about reduction, scepticism, holism, supervenience, concepts, representationalism and emergence.

Perhaps you don't, you certainly don't need to to engage in the practical business of science, but people who are interested in knowledge for its own sake do, including our friend Albert Einstein who remarked, "science without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all - primitive and muddled" although he did warn us about the practical consequences of scientists focusing too much on epistemology.

But I suppose that you lot are just so much brighter than he was. He must have been a really lousy scientist to have been so wrong.

You can add to this that science can't really tell us anything at all about value, which happens to be the most important thing in life (trying thinking of what living life would be like if you ignored the notion of value). That's why we snobby philosophers let you science peasants do the donkey work and invent "nice" things while we bother with stuff that matters.

So if you think scientific results are so great, what do they tell us about the notion of value? What political system do they offer support for?

Of course the usual response of the science loving philistine is to deny any objective notion of value, usually without an argument or a really lame one like Asher's "everyone has their own morals, so there must be no moral knowledge" which is a bluntly fallacious inference. But essentially it is a philosophical question anyway.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The problem with this is scientists and engineers frequently overlook the human side of technolgy - mainly the social impacts that it brings.

But HAL's just a fun-loving AI program!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Should I make a serious post in this thread? What the heck.

The problem with this is scientists and engineers frequently overlook the human side of technolgy - mainly the social impacts that it brings.

You mean like open source advocates which overlook economic impact?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Cybergnu:

'invention' is a poor word.

Contribution is much better.

Thank you very much. We can both agree on the point above, regarding the contributions of Descartes.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
You mean like open source advocates which overlook economic impact?

I would argue that OSS advocates are a lot more humane than faceless, monolithic software developers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Typical.

if we really want to know why a certain scientific theory is right we have to look at the reasons why and the reasons for that, and the reasons for that and so on.

You certainly don't have to do that.
YOU do, as a philosopher, that doesn't make it necessary.

In the end you reach a deadend anyway, going back to Godel's ideas...

You can add to this that science can't really tell us anything at all about value

Neither can philosophers, alas. They manage to argue about it and perhaps convince eachother, everyone else shrugs and uses what they find useful and what they like.

They don't need a philosopher to explain to them the value of a computer, for example. Well, maybe a philosopher would require an explanation...

Of course the usual response of the science loving philistine is to deny any objective notion of value, usually without an argument or a really lame one like Asher's "everyone has their own morals, so there must be no moral knowledge"

Moral knowledge is what you're raised with.

Arguing about morals as if they're absolute right/wrong and it's some big knowledgebank that can be taught in class is so ridiculous I wonder why Philosophy has lasted this long in universities.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I would argue that OSS advocates are a lot more humane than faceless, monolithic software developers.

If that were true, they'd have:
1) Easy to use programs
2) Non-elitist attitudes to non-techy users

Not to mention the fact that if everyone adopted OSS, employment would plummet in IT and the quality of software eventually with it since people no longer practice it as their primary job.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know asingle person who waits to hear what the philophers say about medical ethicists (at least not those at universities)

Jon:

Some people do listen to philosophers, particularly the people in charge. Most may listen to their pastor, or the people they know, but these people are not the ones trying to make decisions for a great number of people.

Public policy generally seeks philosophers, or people trained in philosophy for recommendations. They may not follow the advice, but philosophers can help to clarify the moral issues involved.

This is why we need Christians to take philosophy, to get involved and informed on these issues. Otherwise, we won't be able to change the public perception.

Agathon:
(did you know that it is quite likely that liberal abortion policies renders forcing men to pay child maintenance unethical).

Interesting that you mention this.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, I was aware of that, and suggested 6 months ago on this very site that men be given an equal choice in the decision to abort an unwanted fetus. If the woman decides to keep it over the man's objections, then I see no reason that he should have to pay child maintenance.

And I didn't need a philosopher to tell me it either.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

A scientist could tell you your wasting time, and we all know that time is priceless.

How? Certainly not with anything that they picked up out of a science book.

Of course not, otherwise you'd be out of a job.
You've trained yourself to ponder the unimportant, ponder the trivial, ponder the useless to the point where you've somehow convinced yourself it is useful and relevant, and even vital.

It is - people use it every day.

People believe what they want, a lot of times their beliefs are inconsistent, and a lot of times you certainly won't agree with them.

So what - most people are amenable to argument to some degree and public policy can't operate like this since it has to be accountable to the law and we know that lawyers love exposing inconsistencies.

Such is life as a human being. Surely a true philosopher could see that...

Perhaps, it is for some people. But it certainly isn't the case when a hospital wants to formulate policy.

The reason I asked these questions, of course, is because if you ask them to 10 people, you won't get the same ten answers.

If you ask ten people a difficult mathematical problem you will probably get ten different answers too. So what? - this proves nothing.

I don't understand how you can't realize how relative ethics are to people's upbringing, religion, and beliefs, and why it's stupid to teach them in a classroom...

Teaching ethics? We aren't teaching people to be good or what values to hold (this isn't a morality school). We are teaching them to be better moral reasoners by introducing them to basic concepts like intrinsic and instrumental value and more complex ones such as deontological arguments as opposed to teleological arguments.

I can't understand how you believe that what is relative to people's ubringing etc. has any real value in arguments. Some people are brought up in crazy religious communities to believe ridiculous and stupid things - so what? That doesn't mean they are right, even if we can't change their opinions. The fact that people have lots of different beliefs in no way entails that all of them, or even most of them are right, or should be listened to, or are informed on the subject. People who are content to believe what their parents tell them just because are in my opinion utter morons.

So in other words, philosophers are high school debate club members?

Very funny. Partly true, but they are just much more informed.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
Actually, I was aware of that, and suggested 6 months ago on this very site that men be given an equal choice in the decision to abort an unwanted fetus. If the woman decides to keep it over the man's objections, then I see no reason that he should have to pay child maintenance.

And I didn't need a philosopher to tell me it either.

I'm sure that lots of people believe this, it doesn't mean they have a good argument for it. I certainly don't believe that men should have an equal decision to abort - the consequences of such a policy would be horrifying.

Tell me then, why should the man be given an equal choice?


And Asher's assumption that Godel's incompleteness theorem can save him from having to ask philosophical questions is deluded, since we need to know when precisely to stop asking.

[KrazyHorse]

Tell me then, why should the man be given an equal choice?

He's not being given an equal choice; he's being given an equal opportunity to opt out of the financial burden of raising an unwanted child.

[KrazyHorse]

And Asher's assumption that Godel's incompleteness theorem can save him from having to ask philosophical questions is deluded, since we need to know when precisely to stop asking.

Here's a hint: "what is the basis for the scientific method" is the point you need to stop asking.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
How? Certainly not with anything that they picked up out of a science book.

Being a scientist and being intellectually capable are not mutually exclusive...
Philosophers are just glorified thinkers, without any real application.

Scientists are often thinkers as well as scientists, it's easy to be both and you don't need to go to philosophy lectures to be a thinker.

Philosophers like to think of themselves as great thinkers, so they take silly philosophy courses and are taught things some people can just figure out intuitively (see the abortion issue with obiwan/Frogger)

It is - people use it every day.

Right, in the same sense that people breathe every day -- you don't see university classes on how to breathe...

So what

"So what"??
It renders the whole concept of teaching morals to people as fruitless and useless!

If not everyone has the same morals, how can you teach it as if it is known what everyone's morals SHOULD be?

Perhaps, it is for some people. But it certainly isn't the case when a hospital wants to formulate policy.

And why would the hospital listen to some pretentious philosopher rather than the culture of the community they live in?

If you ask ten people a difficult mathematical problem you will probably get ten different answers too.

What kind of math do you guys take over there??
If you ask people 1 + 1 = 2, some may get it wrong, but they'd be morons.

Are you implying that there IS "correct" and "uncorrect" in ethics like there is in mathematics?

You're totally out there, man...

Teaching ethics? We aren't teaching people to be good or what values to hold (this isn't a morality school). We are teaching them to be better moral reasoners by introducing them to basic concepts like intrinsic and instrumental value and more complex ones such as deontological arguments as opposed to teleological arguments.

So you're teaching people how to think and how to decide what's ethically right...

You still don't see a problem with that?

Hmm. Pretty shallow mind for a thinker.

I can't understand how you believe that what is relative to people's ubringing etc. has any real value in arguments.

Because that's how the world works.
You can act all high and mighty with your intentionally obtuse terminology for simple concepts, but when it comes down to it, people's morals are their own. And a philosopher isn't going to change that.

That's why I know they're relative, and that's why I know philosophy of ethics is a waste of time and money.

[KrazyHorse]

Other questions impossible to answer: positivism, realism, theism, etc.

You see a pattern? Every last fundamental divide of philosophy.

Philosophical questions are rather easy to unravel to their lowest point, and beyond that is a question of belief, not reason.