Mentioning Phil phD's

[KrazyHorse]

The best philosophers come from physics. Philosophers coming from the humanities are usually not so bright, although there are exceptions.

What a ridiculous statement when used to "prove" the claim that philosophy is useful in physics.

you do understand the difference between a->b and b->a, don't you?

[KrazyHorse]

Ummm, atomic theory is a product of philosophy, Asher. Democritus...

What a consistently overstated achievement.

Democritus: everything has a smallest part
Everybody else in ancient Greece: no they don't

2 millennia later people discover the atom as a result of actual experimentation and systemic theoretical work. People look back at what some Greek idiot said because of his crap reasoning and think: Hey! This guy's a frigging genius!



Atomic theory is the result of the work of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Democritus contributed nothing whatsoever to it.

[KrazyHorse]

(which he didn't pull our of his ass - he had reasons for it)

I've read his reasoning. Have you? It's no more or less convincing than the reasoning of the majority of ancient Greek philosophers (who were against it).

Neither side had any merit.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Frogger

Ummm, atomic theory is a product of philosophy, Asher. Democritus...

What a consistently overstated achievement.

Democritus: everything has a smallest part
Everybody else in ancient Greece: no they don't

2 millennia later people discover the atom as a result of actual experimentation and systemic theoretical work. People look back at what some Greek idiot said because of his crap reasoning and think: Hey! This guy's a frigging genius!



Atomic theory is the result of the work of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Democritus contributed nothing whatsoever to it.

Democritis contributed the idea that matter was made up of smaller indivisible bits. That idea did not die out (although it was unpopular) and it re-emerged in the 1500's. The fact that Democritis had no scientific evidence for his ideas doesnt make them any less important. Good scientists have lots of ideas that they cant immediately prove. How much evidence was there for black and white holes when they were postulated?

Personally, I think many science students and scientists would benefit from an appreciation of philosophy. Unlike Asher, I dont want universities to become technical institutes (and I think too many have gone too far in that direction already). Science is not about making stuff for the public.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by SpencerH

How much evidence was there for black and white holes when they were postulated?

White holes, although mathematically feasible, can not physically exist.

[Japher]

I agree with a lot of what Asher is getting at.

Today philosophy is a lot of hindsight, and explinations for what occured. Their explinations, however, address the thought process that occured to obtain such results, more so on the "actual" methods, or performed actions, that obtained those results.

I will agree that back in the day, ya know yore, that philosophy was a sensible field. In fact, as I look over the ancients I see a lot of philosophers that were also scientists (i.e. Pythagoras, the Sulva Sutras, etc. to name a couple). It was a time were logic was overcoming religious dogma, where reason was battling against theocracy. There was a time of great discovery. I would contribute scientific method, the mergance of modern science, and the application and or emergance of scientific method to development of many great discoveries in nature.

However, and there always is a 'but', what is it that philosophy has become today? Mainly, in my opinion, it has become what I mentioned above; rhetoric and regurgitation. Even Jung presents nothing new to what already happens. Stating the obvious does nothing, proving and understanding the obvious so that one may learn how to control it gives the world.

Whereas the development of logic, or nonreligious though to explian the world, allowed one to develop a method by which to control the world, redefining or rehashing such old ideas does nothing.

I must interject on the matter of the "laughing philosopher", Democritus. I think he was a kook, who just threw out random ideas. The fact that one of them was actually true is no surprise. If you believe that he was a genius you might as well believe that Nostradamous was seer.

Philosophy has gone the way of the wind, and like the ancient kingdoms it set the stage for the way things are today, yet doesn't exist as an independent state anymore. It has been fused and meshed within the applicable sciences, it has taken new forms within laws and theories of these sciences, and in all regards has vanished.

Today it is no more than a history lesson, and an explination for what will happen once it has occured.

There are three types of people:
1. Those who make things happen - hard scientist
2. Those who watch things happen - social scientist
3. And those who wonder what happened - philosophers

[Agathon]

What a load of crap. First of all Dalton merely took over most of the Democritean theory and added to it a few things that he had discovered by observation. Nevertheless there is no reason why he should have chosen the theory he did - there's a small matter called the underdetermination of theory by evidence.

Secondly, this silly argument doesn't apply to the Platonic discovery as reported by Penrose. That is the sort of idea that cannot be discovered by empirical observation. No one has said anything worthwhile against this yet.

Thirdly, philosophers are currently doing work that no one else is doing. Stuff like the attempt at the nomological reduction of mental operations to physical laws. Some of the work on this is done by neuroscientists, some by philosophers. It's an interesting topic.

Most of the people in this thread have demonstrated a profound ignorance of what philosophers actually do.

Jung isn't a philosopher.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Frogger

The best philosophers come from physics. Philosophers coming from the humanities are usually not so bright, although there are exceptions.

What a ridiculous statement when used to "prove" the claim that philosophy is useful in physics.

you do understand the difference between a->b and b->a, don't you?

It was just a statement per se. It was not intended to serve as a proof.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Japher
There are three types of people:
1. Those who make things happen - hard scientist
2. Those who watch things happen - social scientist
3. And those who wonder what happened - philosophers

And so what? Someone has to try to find the sense of what happened. It's part of the process.

[SpencerH]

Its also part of the scientific process (at least it is in my lab).

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
So basically, philosophers are the waterboys of academia, but the players have all brought their own gatorade. The poor waterboys are forced to stick to the sidelines and pretend to be useful.

Perhaps the whole system of philosophers' training and employment is seriously flawed. But this doesn't mean that philosophy and philosophers are not needed. Just fix the system.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its also part of the scientific process (at least it is in my lab).

That's great. And philosophers can also take part in this process if you discovery is worth it. Unlike hard specialists, they do it on a more general and global level.

[Provost Harrison]

Agathon should do some proper research. What would you do in a 'philosophy PhD'? Sit around in coffee shops drinking absinthe and wearing togas?

[Japher]

And so what? Someone has to try to find the sense of what happened. It's part of the process.

So what? Exactly.

First of all Dalton merely took over most of the Democritean theory and added to it a few things that he had discovered by observation. Nevertheless there is no reason why he should have chosen the theory he did - there's a small matter called the underdetermination of theory by evidence.

A few things? I don't want to argue that conception is more important than application, but there was a lot more than just a few things added. Also, there was a lot more to Dalton coming to a conclusion that just happened to coincide with something a Greek had happened to mention. I see nothing about Dalton going "hey I wonder if that kook was right" and then going out with this theory in hand in attempt to prove/disprove it. His discoveries came through scientific advancement in measurements, and an analysis of such results. Need I point out that atomic theory is still just a theory? Yet, is one based on physical evidence, not on rational/irrational thought.

Secondly, this silly argument doesn't apply to the Platonic discovery as reported by Penrose. That is the sort of idea that cannot be discovered by empirical observation. No one has said anything worthwhile against this yet.

Platonic discovery? You mean theory, don't you? Penrose is a putz, who is grasping at straws. Not until a credible measuring system is established for separating mind activity from brain activity will he be anything but. It is a great theory, but what does it help with? What does he plan to do with this idea? These are the question we have been asking, and all we get in response are theories, more ideas, more thoughts. All of which are swimming in a sea of ambiguity. Anyone can say there are diamonds in those hills, wait a few thousand years, and be right. Perhaps Penrose may be right, or maybe Hofstadter is, but debating over issues such as these is worthless.

I stick with this review of his book.

Thirdly, philosophers are currently doing work that no one else is doing. Stuff like the attempt at the nomological reduction of mental operations to physical laws. Some of the work on this is done by neuroscientists, some by philosophers. It's an interesting topic.

I know nothing of this, but it seems if they are working with neuroscientist that they are looking for "hard" evidence and not just abstract views on the topic. I am sure this is interesting and will look into it.

Jung isn't a philosopher.

Touche

Rebutt:

I think I have adequatly expressed my admiration for philosophers of the past, and perhaps I am ignorant of the role of todays philosophers. Yet, I hold firmly to my idealogy, being a "hard science" guy and all, that without proof a theory is worthless. Most modern day theories have hard evidence one way or the other of natural occurances. When we begin arguing abstract ideas, that is where I draw the line. Philosophy may have its place but should not exist as its own entity anymore. Rather, it should lie within fields such as theoretical physics, classical chemistry, and other various social sciences. For being able to come up with believable ideas lends nothing towards its application. Thus, a PhD in such a field should lend way towards applications of a thought, and not just the creation of one. Of course I am speaking without any understanding of what is taught at that level of instruction, merely speaking from that which have read and experienced.

[Japher]

Perhaps the whole system of philosophers' training and employment is seriously flawed. But this doesn't mean that philosophy and philosophers are not needed. Just fix the system.

Novel idea.