Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I have. It is not my fault you ignored it. Physics is a scientific process; if there is evidence there it may find it eventually. Philosophy is pure speculation, founded on the musings of the ill-informed and untrained.

    You may think the opposite. I don't care. You asked what I thought.
    So, you reason is that 'if there is evidence there it (physics) may find it eventually'?!

    Well, it serves as a great example of begging the question. But the fact that ignored the rest of my post has said more than the entirety of your replies combined.

    I'm not sure why you replied. You either thought you had something to say but couldn't explain why you think so, or realised that you didn't have good reasons for what you think. So vaguely mused about science possibly having the answer.

    If you don't actually engage in the points I put forward, we should stop wasting time. Though if it's important for you to have the last word, I won't stop you.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I have. It is not my fault you ignored it. Physics is a scientific process; if there is evidence there it may find it eventually. Philosophy is pure speculation, founded on the musings of the ill-informed and untrained.

    You may think the opposite. I don't care. You asked what I thought.
    Apart from science being built upon the shoulders of philosophers, if there was no philosophy there would be no scientific method, nor science for that matter. if there was no philosophy there would be no maths, (at least not as we know them).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Apart from science being built upon the shoulders of philosophers, if there was no philosophy there would be no scientific method, nor science for that matter. if there was no philosophy there would be no maths, (at least not as we know them).
    So you think the man in the cave who needed to know how many haunches of mammoth he had left had to wait until a philosopher came along to think it through for him?

    I doubt that very much. I think he managed to work it out himself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So you think the man in the cave who needed to know how many haunches of mammoth he had left had to wait until a philosopher came along to think it through for him?

    I doubt that very much. I think he managed to work it out himself.



    But that is simple maths. This gives a good example, the Greeks initially though of the number 1 not as a number but an arbitary unit and every number greater than that was just made up multiples of that unit, I.e the number three was 1 followed by 1 followed by 1.

    Now for basic maths that works fine, if you are counting the number of apples in a tree then that works.

    But for irrational numbers such an idea is simply impossible, a guess what it's was philosophers of mathematics which discovered irrationality and paved way for their usage in imaginary numbers which have great usage in fields beyond pure maths, such as physics (a subset of science)

    another example would be Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, a hugely important work in the history of maths, one that approaches maths from a philosophical in an attempt to define a definitive set of axioms from which all maths could be built from (FYI axioms are a idea borrowed from classical philosophy, and how they are defined is decided by philosophers of mathematics and linguistics).

    So yeah, a cave man might not have need philosophy but for our society to exist as it currently does we really did.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    But that is simple maths.
    Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant maths when you said maths. My mistake. I didn't realise arithmetic didn't count.

    Obviously, simple maths leads to more complex maths over long periods of time. I'm not convinced our society comes crashing down without Russell.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant maths when you said maths. My mistake. I didn't realise arithmetic didn't count.

    Obviously, simple maths leads to more complex maths over long periods of time. I'm not convinced our society comes crashing down without Russell.
    But again the assumptions made by your cave man counting were false, but they worked well enough for what he wanted. Now you can say that someone else who wasn't a philosopher could have figured that out eventually and even if that is assumed to be true that doesn't mean the contribution of philosophers on maths cannt be written away, their effect is very present and has been for a very long time, a far cry from your ill-informed and untrained statement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    But again the assumptions made by your cave man counting were false, but they worked well enough for what he wanted. Now you can say that someone else who wasn't a philosopher could have figured that out eventually and even if that is assumed to be true that doesn't mean the contribution of philosophers on maths cannt be written away, their effect is very present and has been for a very long time, a far cry from your ill-informed and untrained statement.
    Good luck Garfeeled.


    TSR no longer has the quality of debates it used to
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    But again the assumptions made by your cave man counting were false, but they worked well enough for what he wanted. Now you can say that someone else who wasn't a philosopher could have figured that out eventually and even if that is assumed to be true that doesn't mean the contribution of philosophers on maths cannt be written away, their effect is very present and has been for a very long time, a far cry from your ill-informed and untrained statement.
    You write eloquently in defence of philosophers, but it does not change the fact that they are incapable of understanding the nature of our origins, while physicists may be one day.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The scientific method is built upon a philosophical framework; that's not even controversial. Sir Karl Popper would probably wince at this conversation.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

    This comment thread seems relevant:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditsM...osophy/cupgheu
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Puddles the Monkey thoughts?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You write eloquently in defence of philosophers, but it does not change the fact that they are incapable of understanding the nature of our origins, while physicists may be one day.
    humour me here im going to try a different method. , why do you think that, you seem to disregard the importance of philophy whilst being in awe of the importance of science. Can you argue scientifically that philosophers are incapable of understanding the nature of our origins.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Assassin)
    The scientific method is built upon a philosophical framework; that's not even controversial. Sir Karl Popper would probably wince at this conversation.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

    This comment thread seems relevant:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditsM...osophy/cupgheu
    But you forget Karl popper was untrained and ill informed.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Assassin)
    The scientific method is built upon a philosophical framework; that's not even controversial. Sir Karl Popper would probably wince at this conversation.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

    This comment thread seems relevant:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditsM...osophy/cupgheu
    "plenty of scientists have said they were indebted to philosophers of science in changing how they viewed science, and in some cases actively changed how they do science after reading some philosophers of science.
    I often use these two examples, but I think they are helpful, so forgive me if I repeat myself: Peter Medawar and John Eccles are two Nobel laureates. Both of them claim to be indebted to one of the most famous philosophers of science of the 20th century: Sir Karl Popper. They say they actively changed how they did science after reading his work, and say their Nobel Prizes are due to a shift in their understanding of science. And that is one philosopher of science. There's been plenty of work done in understanding methodology since then, so who knows how much it could help!"

    Great point.


    TSR no longer has the quality of debates it used to
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    humour me here im going to try a different method. , why do you think that, you seem to disregard the importance of philophy whilst being in awe of the importance of science. Can you argue scientifically that philosophers are incapable of understanding the nature of our origins.
    i did not mean to imply that philosophers are unintelligent or incapable of understanding science. That would be nonsense. I meant that as philosophers they do not understand science. Many are also scientists, but it is as scientists that they understand science.

    You can philosophize all you like but it will not take you any nearer to understanding our origins, other than in your own mind.The result would be nothing that could be built on or relied on in building an engine to leave the universe, for instance. Physicists, on the other hand, may one day be able to understand the universe, and to then go on and use that understanding to allow technologists to build useful machines.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    i did not mean to imply that philosophers are unintelligent or incapable of understanding science. That would be nonsense. I meant that as philosophers they do not understand science. Many are also scientists, but it is as scientists that they understand science.

    You can philosophize all you like but it will not take you any nearer to understanding our origins, other than in your own mind.The result would be nothing that could be built on or relied on in building an engine to leave the universe, for instance. Physicists, on the other hand, may one day be able to understand the universe, and to then go on and use that understanding to allow technologists to build useful machines.
    I would disagree given that, as I have said, science was built upon philosophy.

    The second link provided by the assassin quite neatly deals with this, two noble prize winners (in fields that are scientific) saying that they are indebted to Karl popper, who was probably the most influential philosopher of science of the last century.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    i did not mean to imply that philosophers are unintelligent or incapable of understanding science. That would be nonsense. I meant that as philosophers they do not understand science. Many are also scientists, but it is as scientists that they understand science.

    You can philosophize all you like but it will not take you any nearer to understanding our origins, other than in your own mind.The result would be nothing that could be built on or relied on in building an engine to leave the universe, for instance. Physicists, on the other hand, may one day be able to understand the universe, and to then go on and use that understanding to allow technologists to build useful machines.
    Cosmology is one of those topics that does not fall solely in the domain of science. Philosophy, in particular philosophy of physics, philosophy of space & time, and metaphysics use the findings in physical cosmology and vice versa to refine their respective hypotheses and work towards answering some of the big questions about the universe.

    You might be interested in what Sean Carroll, an atheist theoretical physicist, has to say about philosophy and its importance in cosmology: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...ut-philosophy/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    so was religion built upon philosophy. They call it theology but it amounts to the same thing. Science takes the ponderings of philosophers and theologists and tries to prove a reality out of them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Cosmology is one of those topics that does not fall solely in the domain of science. Philosophy, in particular philosophy of physics, philosophy of space & time, and metaphysics use the findings in physical cosmology and vice versa to refine their respective hypotheses and work towards answering some of the big questions about the universe.
    But their findings are pure speculation and not scientific. metaphysics is pure philosophy. Isaac Asimov wrote many books that used the findings of physical cosmology and refined them. We call them science fiction.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Cosmology is one of those topics that does not fall solely in the domain of science. Philosophy, in particular philosophy of physics, philosophy of space & time, and metaphysics use the findings in physical cosmology and vice versa to refine their respective hypotheses and work towards answering some of the big questions about the universe.
    I've actually heard a few of the top cosmologists who are working on theories of the universe's origin describe it as a mix of metaphysics and physics.

    It's been a long time, but if memory serves Alexander Vilenkin actually uses metaphysical ideas of time with his quantum tunnelling idea.


    TSR no longer has the quality of debates it used to
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    But their findings are pure speculation and not scientific. metaphysics is pure philosophy. Isaac Asimov wrote many books that used the findings of physical cosmology and refined them. We call them science fiction.
    Read the link in my edit. You're comparing hard-science fiction to rigorous conceptual analyses consistent with scientific data :facepalm:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016

2,730

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.