Sartre's Contradiction

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not trust these brilliant minds that philosophy is significant in order to understand what your scientific discoveries actually mean?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say that philosophy is unimportant; I'd say that, in general, full-time professional philosphers tend not to be very good at it.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman, whenever some philosopher of science (as opposed to a scientist) says something about what is absolutely essential to the fundamental nature of science, it is always rather naive and probably wrong.

IMO, if you want a solid, clear, logically consistent analysis of some philosophical issue or another, you'd be better off going to a mathematician instead of a philosopher.

[awarunn]

So full time professional philosophers are not as good at philosophy as mathematicians. So if I want to know if electrons really exist or not should I go to a phd. student in physics or one in philosophy of science? I'm taking my shot with the philosopher of science, sorry.

[David Sklansky]

I'm happy with your reply. And I admit that I am unfamiliar with the exact definition of philosphy. Al I know is that the little I read makes it seem like they want to make things more complicated than they are.

[David Sklansky]

"Machines can be biult that pawn the average human being at math"

An amazingly ridiculous statement.

"If you want to spend your life trying your best to get your subjectivity to resmeble an objective automated process or a pale shadow of my deskttop calculator go for it, well done you have just decided to utterly squander youre existenze. Might as well kill yourself now."

Playing right into Not Ready's hands. Philosophy, to my knowledge, never discovers any ultimate truths anyway. It discusses questions that can't be answered (if there is no God). The reason you shouldn't kill yourself is the same reason a poodle shouldn't. (Assuming poodles go to strip clubs.)

[Triumph36]

That's because you've assumed how things are. Many philosophers don't, and think they can reason to 'how things are'. I don't think you're so much concerned with how things are than how things act, or to possibly start a semantics war, how things exist.

[David Sklansky]

"Philosophers (the best anyway) are able to provide"

Agreed. But the subject allows less than the best practitioners to go on with what they do without being exposed as incompetant. Thats my gripe. The same is true with many other fields of course. The difference is that everybody knows that about those other fields.

To make it clear, I have no problem with people being philosophically minded. I just don't like it when the subject is made unnecessarily formal.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason you shouldn't kill yourself is the same reason a poodle shouldn't. (Assuming poodles go to strip clubs.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is perhaps the most profound insight in the whole thread.

Yugoslav
#1 scrippa stunna...

[David Sklansky]

I have totally changed my opinion of you.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Playing right into Not Ready's hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]

Philosophy, to my knowledge, never discovers any ultimate truths anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

No merely human endeavor does. But humans have questions about ultimate truths. It's one of the things that separates us from animals. I believe this is true because we are created in God's image. And since as a race we've abandoned the knowledge source that provides the answers we've invented philosophy to fill the void.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I have totally changed my opinion of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or don't have a sense of humor?

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Yugoslav