Lord Browne, don't you think abandoning the Arts & Humanities is short sighted?

There really isn't philosophy in politics anymore. Most of politics today is pragmatism, note I have studied some economics and free market economics. Most of today big decision is driven by the free market.

I can quote Stephen Hawking. The point is that top physicist don't care about philosophy i.e. shut up and calculate mentality. Can you quote a mathematician or physicist alive that says anything good about philosophy?

Philosophers are ignorant, if you want the truth its better to read Stephen Hawking then some tripe book titled post modernism. Maths degree differ by little, so I don't see how your point is relevant. Maths is useful, take number theory, if it was not for that we wouldn't have internet banking. For example at the uni I go to Alan Turing came up with the computer and he was a maths student, most of his work was based of the most abstract mathematics of that time. Maths is useful, more useful than philosophy could ever hope to be, particularly since all of science is written in maths.

Pure maths doesn't really make sense as a term any more. Name me a field of mathematics that you think has no applications, that isn't used in the real world. Number theory is most important branch of mathematics as it's need for internet banking. Then, we have group theory needed in particle physics. The list goes on. Note, you know nothing about maths so it's hard to argue against ignorance.

Yes, I know there it's hard to argue against ignorance. You do realise economics and politics are different subjects. People don't do a politics degree so that they can actually study economics. Of course economics is a part of politics but that's not what politics is about. It's actually mostly ANALysing different theories which comes from philosophy.

Why should I care what mathematicians or physicists have to say about philosophy. They aren't the highest authority on every subject possible. And I doubt you're going to do anything useful with your maths degree, just like most other maths graduate you're going to do something as pointless and worthless as most art graduates so just get over yourself.

Also, you are possibly the most ignorant and arrogant and annoying person I have ever met. You think that by doing maths you have any career choice apart from being a paedophilic rapist. You don't. You'll grow a massive beard, get big 60s glasses and live around primary schools. You're more like a twatamatician than a mathamatician. I am really upset because I'm working really hard to get a good grade in Philosophy and it does not help my confidence to have people like you insulting it and mocking my intelligence. I shouldn't be thought of as stupid because I enjoy something you don't like And while I can't quote a physicist, I can quote John Lennon: "Why can't we all just get along, and live in peace and harmony". Let's agree to disagree, friend.

It is not ridiculous, and it is not about 'mere consideration'; this is how knowledge develops in all fields. If you were the first person to theorize the existence of nuclear fusion then you would be rightfully lauded – after all, you know about nuclear fusion because someone else considered its existence.

With regards to the Greeks, you did not pick a particularly good example; not only would quantum theory be impossible without Aristotle's physics, but he differentiated substance and matter, and defined their relationships in terms of their structural (in)divisibility. “Chronological snobbery” (the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited) is a dangerous thing, my friend.

Also, you are possibly the most ignorant and arrogant and annoying person I have ever met. You think that by doing maths you have any career choice apart from being a paedophilic rapist. You don't. You'll grow a massive beard, get big 60s glasses and live around primary schools. You're more like a twatamatician than a mathamatician. I am really upset because I'm working really hard to get a good grade in Philosophy and it does not help my confidence to have people like you insulting it and mocking my intelligence. I shouldn't be thought of as stupid because I enjoy something you don't like

I don't have a 'Chronological Snobbery' of any kind, I just appreciate advances made in the last century! Yes, Aristotle said many things which have contributed to physics, but attribute the complex mathematics of today's theory to him is just bizarre.

Just admit it, you've picked a ridiculous, quizzical standpoint and you're unable to accept that you're wrong!

The fact you haven't had a comeback to Simplicitys excellent quantum physics response is quite telling, btw.

Completely agree. He's just a complete moron whose only sexual fanatsy is most likely a science textbook on Quantum Physics.

Simplicity is a moron who does not accept basic premises such as scientific knowledge being metaphysical, and denies point blank the historicity of his own subject; I did not reply to his 'excellent quantum physics response' because it would have been a complete waste of my time. What kind of discourse can I possibly have with someone who does not even acknowledge the basic tenets of his own field? I do not think he realises that there was a time before the axioms of mathematics existed, and that they are changeable too.

Nevertheless, at no point did I 'attribute the complex mathematics of today's theory to [Aristotle]'. Everyone has their time and place; Aristotle's tends to be at the beginning of things.

Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking has said that he sees no necessity for God in the creation of the universe and that philosophy is dead.

Simplicity is a moron who does not accept basic premises such as scientific knowledge being metaphysical, and denies point blank the historicity of his own subject; I did not reply to his 'excellent quantum physics response' because it would have been a complete waste of my time. What kind of discourse can I possibly have with someone who does not even acknowledge the basic tenets of his own field? I do not think he realises that there was a time before the axioms of mathematics existed, and that they are changeable too.

Nevertheless, at no point did I 'attribute the complex mathematics of today's theory to [Aristotle]'. Everyone has their time and place; Aristotle's tends to be at the beginning of things.

Again, philosophy is dead. Philosophers have failed to keep up, especially with the maths.

Arts and humanities although interesting arent tackerling the problems we face as a society so no, in the times of economic crisis they shouldnt be funded. Once we are back to a country that can afford luxury items then this can be reviewed.

Why have philosophers given up trying to understand the universe? Philosophers in the past century kept up with current theories like Kant. However, today's philosophers are ignorant in that they don't study QM nor have an advanced understanding of maths. Why is this?

Apart from most philosophers of mathematics and philosophers of science, of course. Although, some of the 'proper' philosophers in our academic departments do look down on these areas of philosophy. I'm not going to defend their attitude.

Isn't it just the case that natural philosophy has been re-branded as science and that as our knowledge of the universe has increased greater levels of specialism are required to advance that knowledge?

The areas of science and mathematics left to reside in philosophy departments are to do with trying to define what science and knowledge are, etc. - topics that don't interest most modern scientists because they are taught, wrongly, at school that these issues have been definitively answered by previous generations. Most scientists I know fail to even consider the fact that they cannot, when they think about it, reconcile how science actually proceeds with what is taught as the 'scientific method' (i.e. strong Popperian falsificationism). This is why we see so many students of science (and some professional scientists who open their mouths on this issue, without doing any reading) resort to scientism in order to defend why science is special, because they don't have the philosophical grounding to defend it properly.

What does thins mean? Please elaborate because it sounds incredibly interesting however I fear that I do not have the level of expertise to be able to navigate the quagmire of information (undoubtedly largely questionable in validity) on this area.

What it means is that the process of conducting science, theoretically, doesn't proceed in the logical way that we are taught at school: i.e. hypothesis, test, conclusion, accept or reject hypothesis. Theories often survive large assaults on their validity, people proceed for years with theories without any empirical back-up, etc. etc. Some theories are still utilised despite falsification (Newtonian mechanics for example) because they are pracitcable, etc.

This is important because the simple method we are taught at school was proposed by the philosoper Karl Popper to overcome the problem of induction and prove that science was deductive and therefore give a theoretical basis for why science was a special endeavour and required special consideration (i.e. that it is closer to the objective 'truth' than other subjects). The fact that there are numerous examples that show that science is not conducted this way means that this idea does not represent science and we cannot use it to justify the special nature of science. Other philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos developed further ideas that deal with a more complex, but more realistic conceptual framework for science that justifies why it is special (e.g. Kuhn creates a framework that acknowledges scientific revolutions as a neccessary part of scientific progress), however anarchic philosophers such as Feyerabend launched a successful attack on the foundations of these ideas and this work has led many philosophers to the idea that science cannot derive its special nature purely from how its theory is derived. Hence they cam up with the idea that it is experiment that makes science special (i.e. rather than experiment simply being the 'lap-dog' of theory as many theoretical physicists would like to believe) - science's relative objectivity is determined by how objectively one can observe experimentally and that experiment and theory go hand in hand not one after the other. This leads to a (imho) plausible rationale although tied with it is the uncomfortable idea that there are no clear boundaries between what is science and what is not as such - you have to drawn the line yourself.

Thanks for the response.

So in your opinion, should there be a reduction in emphasis of the teaching of the scientific method to kids or should it be left until university/higher education before the introduction of the more 'fluid#means through which science is carried out?

There really isn't philosophy in politics anymore. Most of politics today is pragmatism, note I have studied some economics and free market economics. Most of today big decision is driven by the free market.

I can quote Stephen Hawking. The point is that top physicist don't care about philosophy i.e. shut up and calculate mentality. Can you quote a mathematician or physicist alive that says anything good about philosophy?

Precisely. Universities are institutions of higher learning not tools for social engineering. Again let me reiterate, it is not the job of Universities to produce moral citizens.