Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 338 posts

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#161

Post by paganel »

AstralStorm wrote: post #71
paganel wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say philosophy is the science of definitions It depends, I guess. If it matters I for one stand on Socrates's side when it comes to what philosophy is and I find definitions to be just "syntactic sugar", they don't bring anything new to the table. This is also one of the reasons for why I found Aristotle pretty boring, I think he started this trend with categorizing things and defining terms, without trying…

Axiomatized mathematics and logic too complicated, compared to undefined meanings in philosophy? There is no grand view in philosophy either, but millions of tiny conflicts coexisting from which no truth can be gleaned as the philosophers will wriggle out with sophistry. (Just like politicians for that matter.) It is a good old Wittgesteinian challenge. Hope so you define concept of free will in axiomatic logic? Shou…

> Axiomatized mathematics and logic too complicated, compared to undefined meanings in philosophy?

I agree that those two can be "simplified" to something that people who haven't a PhD in mathematics can talk and write about, but once we go to more advanced stuff things become really, really hard to describe in layman's terms, and as such they are not interesting from a philosophical point of view.

I mean, things like a double integral or an Abelian group are indeed useful from an efficiency point of view, meaning that a technical society like ours needed them in order to build most of the stuff that surrounds us (bridges that don't fall at the first major earthquake, computers, rockets that have taken us to space) but they are completely and utterly useless at answering questions that have bugged us for thousands of years: why is it bad to randomly kill someone? Why is it bad to kill someone even if that potentially means a better economical prospect for me and my family? Why is it bad to kill at all? Why shouldn't we kill ourselves right here and now, thus avoiding future psychic and physical pains like illness or the disappearance of closed ones? These are all fundamental questions related to our very nature to which philosophy has offered some answers which have been satisfactory to some people, in any case, the rate of success has been much higher for philosophy compared to maths or physics when trying to find a satisfactory answer.

> Should we start with axiom of choice perhaps?

What does that say?

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#162

Post by Veedrac »

naasking wrote: post #153
Veedrac wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, read the link I gave. (Note also that I'm explaining the dominant arguments, not endorsing them.) If it's still not clear why I put the implication that way around, note that not everyone thinks that you have a moral responsibility in the way Peter Singer argues, but basically every philosopher thinks it's wrong to kick a dog.

I've been studying and debating this issue for years, I know what it means. From your own link, "As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility". In other words, making a choice of your own free will entails moral responsibility, not the other way around like you said. I don…

> "As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility"

Exactly... "necessary", not "sufficient".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#163

Post by imh »

lisper wrote: post #147

"Popper was kind of an egocentric jerk." Oh, the staggering irony of responding to the charge that philosophers don't produce anything worthwhile with an ad hominem. Res ipsa loquitur.

You missed the "Nope, see above." part right before your quote.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#164

Post by geoka9 »

goatlover wrote: post #81
AstralStorm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathematics and logic are more of a study of concepts than philosophy, highly contaminated by language and imprecision, could ever warrant to be. (These are earliest branches out of philosophy by the way.) Use of natural language makes most of the ideas entertained by philosophy highly ambiguous until they get formalized. Even ethics can be strictly formalized in a more advanced logic system, making the ideas and app…

That's what analytic philosophy has been trying to do for the past century. How well it has succeeded is debatable. Maybe instead of thinking of language as poor, ambiguous version of logic, we should think of logic as a limited version of language. Logic can't tell us what we should care about, how we should feel, what's worth pursing, what it means to exist as an animal with needs. We suffer, we desire, we wonder.…

But that means you can't make valid conclusions relying on natural language alone.

Before mathematicians get to play with abstract concepts, they rigorously define and prove them. Philosophers also want to make conclusions about abstract concepts but they refuse or are unable to pay that price.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#165

Post by mfoy_ »

blueprint wrote: post #158
salmonfamine wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to actually address this comment since it's such a ramble, but I think you make some disingenuous rhetorical moves that deserve to be addressed. You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. This is also a convenient move that lets you characterize huge swaths of academia that dis…

> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. Are you not doing the same thing back to him ? If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.

"Science" is just a collection of tools and processes.

"Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult.

Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.)

The point is, that you can personally go learn how it all works, follow the studies, and attempt to replicate them, even, to arrive at the same conclusions. Or, if you find issues along the way, you can point them out and contribute to the corpus of "scientific knowledge" by removing an invalid "truth".

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#166

Post by salmonfamine »

blueprint wrote: post #158
salmonfamine wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to actually address this comment since it's such a ramble, but I think you make some disingenuous rhetorical moves that deserve to be addressed. You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. This is also a convenient move that lets you characterize huge swaths of academia that dis…

> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. Are you not doing the same thing back to him ? If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.

1) It’s hard to say “no” to this because it’s not clear what you mean. Do you mean to say that I’m painting religion in the guise of religion?

2) here are several definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#167

Post by Retric »

blueprint wrote: post #158
salmonfamine wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to actually address this comment since it's such a ramble, but I think you make some disingenuous rhetorical moves that deserve to be addressed. You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. This is also a convenient move that lets you characterize huge swaths of academia that dis…

> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. Are you not doing the same thing back to him ? If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.

Science is a methodology for defining how the universe operates. It’s sole assumption is the univers has some form of order, and holds zero other beliefs.

Seriously, people question if time exists or how many dimensions their are. Consensus is what allows medicine to operate and people to build computers etc, but it’s not accepted Truth.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#168

Post by mfoy_ »

salmonfamine wrote: post #152
brobdingnagians wrote: post #45

Sounds like a clever, witty, and charming guy. Would be very interesting to talk to him; I like his style of talking. Curiously ironic that he cites a consensus in personal belief in atheism and agnostics among philosophers (at least, modern philosophers, most philosophers in history believed in God..) as a good reason for philosophy not accepting the existence of God, which appears to be a popularity contest (and ec…

It's hard to actually address this comment since it's such a ramble, but I think you make some disingenuous rhetorical moves that deserve to be addressed. You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. This is also a convenient move that lets you characterize huge swaths of academia that dis…

I initially wanted to downvote GP, for the reasons you cite and more, but it sparked such an interesting (if predictably heated) debate that I kind of like it.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#169

Post by [deleted] »

Veedrac wrote: post #162
naasking wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been studying and debating this issue for years, I know what it means. From your own link, "As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility". In other words, making a choice of your own free will entails moral responsibility, not the other way around like you said. I don…

> "As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility" Exactly... "necessary", not "sufficient". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

[deleted]

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#170

Post by blueprint »

mfoy_ wrote: post #165
blueprint wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. Are you not doing the same thing back to him ? If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.

"Science" is just a collection of tools and processes. "Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult. Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.)…

That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science.

If you want to define science as that which uncovers truth, then, for that to be true, you must be able to define truth without resorting to tautology (that is, there must be a way to verify 'truth').

Excluding a subset of what's false doesn't necessarily lead you to discovering or being able to accept (integrate) the truth.

Post reply on HN