Mentioning Phil phD's

[Sandman]

I did philosophy in high school, and it's well worth a look. I also did it for a couple of years in university (Scottish universities have an unusual course structure), and it was nice and easy because I'd already got the basics under my belt.

Philosophy does make it much easier to create convincing arguments. For that, it's useful.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Anyway, you are up to your usual tricks - you haven't answered my question and told me what you mean by "useful". I certainly find philosophy useful everyday, but you seem to be using the term in a different sense. Please elaborate.

You're up to your usual tricks, you ask a question and proclaim any responses to it as not answering the question...

It's not useful because it doesn't get you a job in the real world or contribute to society. It doesn't improve research in any fields, it doesn't provide any benefit at all other than being "interesting" for some people.

Can you prove that? Why shouldn't we simply assume the latter statement as correct?

You can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either.
There's zero evidence suggesting God exists, plenty suggesting he does not, but no proof either way.

I was just trolling.

So then what about blue sky pursuit of knowledge in the hard sciences, information that can increase our understanding of the universe and its laws but not nessecarily have direct benefit to society. The purpose of universities isn't to try to provide a direct benefit society but to pursue knowledge.

Ah, clever trick.
The purpose of public universities is to pursue knowledge that would benefit the public. In some areas, this includes obscure research (mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) that are not directly applicable to the public but eventually do benefit society in numerous ways.

Please give me a couple cases where philosophy has benefitted society, and I'll give you cases where physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, engineering, etc. have all benefitted society.

Would that be fair?

[The Vagabond]

Asher, perhaps you won't object that philosophy benefits mathematics, physics, social sciences, etc. But mathematics, physics and social sciences obviously all benefit society. Then it follows that philosophy benefits society. Proof completed.

[KrazyHorse]

None of the philosophers I know were any good at physics or math. They seemed to be good at constructing fraudulent proofs with the aid of faulty logic and convenient axioms.

Which isn't surprising, given their forebears.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Asher, perhaps you won't object that philosophy benefits mathematics, physics, social sciences, etc. But mathematics, physics and social sciences obviously all benefit society. Then it follows that philosophy benefits society. Proof completed.

Except I would object that philosophy benefits those fields.

If anything, philosophy borrows heavily from those fields, not vice versa. FOL is like a very primitive relational programming language from Lady Lovelace's era.

Sure, centuries ago philosophers were important, but not these days...

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Frogger
None of the philosophers I know were any good at physics or math. They seemed to be good at constructing fraudulent proofs with the aid of faulty logic and convenient axioms.

So you had a bad luck with philosophers. The best philosophers come from physics. Philosophers coming from the humanities are usually not so bright, although there are exceptions.

It's not a problem with philosophy as such. It's a problem of good and bad philosophers.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asher
Except I would object that philosophy benefits those fields.

Good. So the field of our discussion narrows down.

[Asher]

The problem with philosophy these days is it's not making any progress. It's not going anywhere.

It's the pursuit of semantics under the guise of knowledge.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asher
It's the pursuit of semantics under the guise of knowledge.

It's what a bad philosophy does. A good philosophy uncovers interrelation between seemingly unrelated things. And for that purpose, it has to use/introduce some general notions/concepts which can easily be confused with semantics.

[The Vagabond]

Asher, just out of curiosity, do you know the first law of dialectics, which states that quantity turns into quality and vice versa?

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
A good philosophy uncovers interrelation between seemingly unrelated things.

That's called data mining in my field. And amazingly, it's actually very useful. But as a CS field, not as an abstract philosophy field...

Asher, just out of curiosity, do you know the first law of dialectics, which states that quantity turns into quality and vice versa?

Exhibit A regarding uselessness...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You're up to your usual tricks, you ask a question and proclaim any responses to it as not answering the question...

It's not useful because it doesn't get you a job in the real world or contribute to society. It doesn't improve research in any fields, it doesn't provide any benefit at all other than being "interesting" for some people.

The latter is simply untrue, but the other poster pointed this out. Anyway, only what is useless has real value since the useful is useful for something and this is either useful for something else or something that is worthwhile in itself, and thus not useful.

And the notion of universities not being part of the "real world" is absurd.

You can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either.
There's zero evidence suggesting God exists, plenty suggesting he does not, but no proof either way.

That's not the point of the example. The point of the example is that we have two hypotheses adduced to explain the evidence. Both do the job of explanation but the former does it better than the latter. The actual existence of the hypothesised entities is besides the point. I for one am wary of asserting the existence of explanatory entities non-hypothetically for the simple reason that scientific orthodoxy changes rapidly and today's ultimate particles are tomorrow's phlogiston.

Please give me a couple cases where philosophy has benefitted society, and I'll give you cases where physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, engineering, etc. have all benefitted society.

You stupid idiot.

The following were invented or discovered by philosophers or by people who were basically doing philosophy.

The systemisation of formal logic - Aristotle.
The invention of political science - Aristotle
The formulation of the first systems of rational explanation of phenomena - The Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle.
The notion of a professional public service - Plato
Utopianism - Plato
The notion of abstract ideas - Plato
Universals - Plato
The philosophical groundwork for Christian theology - Plato, Aristotle
The notion of state provided education for boys and girls - Plato
The invention of meterology, biology, literary criticism, etc. - Aristotle
The notion of a cosmopolitan society - Zeno of Citium, Chrysippus
The university - Plato
Atomic theory - Democritus and Leucippus.
Evolution - Empedocles
Natural law - the Stoics (Zeno, Chrysippys, et al)
The notion of certainty as the fundamental ground of inquiry (Al Ghazali, Descartes)
The US Constitution - borrows heavily from the work of John Locke.
Every major political theory. (Hobbes, Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, etc.). Meaning : Conservatism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Communism, Welfare Liberalism, the Social Contract, etc. etc.
Scepticism - Pyrrho, Sextus Empircus, Hume, Descartes.
Bioethics.
Philosophical influences on art - romanticism, neo-platonism, other -isms etc.
Feminism - Plato, John Stuart Mill, Mary Wolstonecraft.
The Enlightenment - Voltaire, Rousseau, etc.
Our ordinary pretheoretical notion of what a person is.
Scientific paradigms.
Operationalism
Reductionism
Natural rights
Multiculturalism
The underdetermination of theory by evidence.
Empiricism.
Rationalism
Conceptual schemes

I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The latter is simply untrue, but the other poster pointed this out.

No, he didn't. Please explain to me why it's useful, nobody has done that yet, although a few have tried...

You stupid idiot.

Is this the kind of stuff they teach you in philosophy? If so, I approve!

The following were invented or discovered by philosophers or by people who were basically doing philosophy.

...

I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired.

I can't believe you did that...

I mean, **** like "multiculturalism" as something invented/discovered by philosophy?

Give me a break! Who do you guys think you're fooling. You've just shown even more reasons why philosophy is a waste of funds at public universities.

This thread needs to be archived.

[Agathon]

And before you rant on about old stuff - philosophers are still formulating new political philosophies, having new thoughts about the nature of mind and responding to the ethical problems created by new technologies. It would take a long post to explain all the things that philosophy does, but I would urge you to look at the influence Ludwig Wittgenstein has had on diverse fields, such as mathematics, art, sociology, literary theory, history, etc.

Asher - yours is an unexamined life, lived in open defiance of reason. I'm not surprised you don't appreciate these things.

And let me add to my list.

The notion that society should not seek to better its members, but prevent conflict between them (Hobbes, Rousseau, Rawls, Dworkin, etc.).

[Asher]

Oh my...

Hey, I'm a great philosopher.

I just discovered that when I shove my d1ck into a pencil sharpener, it hurts. I shall call it, the "Law of
Pen15".

Add that to your list.