Time

[Spec]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Good one

Hey man, that was just a typo

Spec.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
?

Sorry, I forgot to put this in my post:

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Just because Science developed from philosophy doesn't mean that philosophy=science.

JM

Which I have not said anyway...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Sorry, I forgot to put this in my post:

hey! thanks so much for the help! the thing is, sarcasm or not, I don't understand...

[Kuciwalker]

<-- CS/math double major

[Bill3000]

Uh, philosophy is much more than just cannabis-induced questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" There is the idea of rationality, logic, inductive and deductive arguments. It certainatly should be more respected than, say, the rhetoric of politics.

While philosophy isn't science, that doesn't mean that it isn't intimately related to science. It is. It may not be a natural science, but neither is mathematics. Science often does have to deal with the implication of various theories other than just the math. Philosophy is not inherintly pointless.

I used to think the same way about philosophy, but that is only because I only had the stereotypical view of what philosophy is. If you could compare it to science, it is a science in which there are various competing and credible theories, as opposed to science having "mainstream" and "other", really. While eexistantilist questions can be pointless and unproductive, this does not mean that philosophy as a whole is pointless.

Making an argument that philosophy is science is a far cry from saying creationism is science, especially since science could not exist at all without philosophy. Just try to imagine a world in which we could not learn and take advantage of reasoning, and you'll imagine a world without philosophy.

Besides, it is only proof that more people need to take philosophy, considering the fact that most people don't know how to debate properly.

[Japher]

Who should study time philosopers or scientists?

How about scientists tripping on peyote?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Bill3000
Uh, philosophy is much more than just cannabis-induced questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" There is the idea of rationality, logic, inductive and deductive arguments. It certainatly should be more respected than, say, the rhetoric of politics.

While philosophy isn't science, that doesn't mean that it isn't intimately related to science. It is. It may not be a natural science, but neither is mathematics. Science often does have to deal with the implication of various theories other than just the math. Philosophy is not inherintly pointless.

I used to think the same way about philosophy, but that is only because I only had the stereotypical view of what philosophy is. If you could compare it to science, it is a science in which there are various competing and credible theories, as opposed to science having "mainstream" and "other", really. While eexistantilist questions can be pointless and unproductive, this does not mean that philosophy as a whole is pointless.

Making an argument that philosophy is science is a far cry from saying creationism is science, especially since science could not exist at all without philosophy. Just try to imagine a world in which we could not learn and take advantage of reasoning, and you'll imagine a world without philosophy.

Besides, it is only proof that more people need to take philosophy, considering the fact that most people don't know how to debate properly.

QFT

For the record, I majored in Physics (and Economics) and minored in Philosophy in college.

[BeBMan]

I'd agree too, but I feel already evil enough

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Bill3000
Uh, philosophy is much more than just cannabis-induced questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" There is the idea of rationality, logic, inductive and deductive arguments. It certainatly should be more respected than, say, the rhetoric of politics.

That's a great recommendation.

I used to think the same way about philosophy, but that is only because I only had the stereotypical view of what philosophy is.

I'll admit I'm slightly predisposed to think of it in terms of Agathon's threads.

If you could compare it to science, it is a science in which there are various competing and credible theories, as opposed to science having "mainstream" and "other", really. While eexistantilist questions can be pointless and unproductive, this does not mean that philosophy as a whole is pointless.

Nevertheless, much of philosophy doesn't even hold the promise of long-term applications (unlike pure* science and math).

* replace with: fundamental, basic, unapplied, whatever prevents a semantic argument

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Nevertheless, much of philosophy doesn't even hold the promise of long-term applications (unlike pure* science and math).

* replace with: fundamental, basic, unapplied, whatever prevents a semantic argument

Much of philosophy is actually very similar to math. And computer science depends on logic, which is a branch of philosophy (though admittedly, logic as a branch of philosophy is much more advanced than it is in computer science).

[Kuciwalker]

I can guarantee that Agathon's interpretation of Plato will never influence computer science.

[Dis]

didn't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned the time cube yet?

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I can guarantee that Agathon's interpretation of Plato will never influence computer science.

Is Agathon a philosopher?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes. Well, a professor thereof.