Happy Atheist Forum

I just read a post by Hackenslash, which made me think. He said that philosophy is good for teaching you how to think, but not what to think (I'm paraphrasing you, Hack, of course). I've met people who consider philosophy to be just as if not slightly more important than science, whereas others think it has it's uses, and others still have no time for philosophy at all.

I know what I think about philosophy but where do you stand?

I think it's very important to contemplating life's questions.

But like any equation you have to put in quality information in order to get the correct answer.

Philosophy is good.

That's all I really have to say on the matter.

Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Brilliant.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Philosophy is nothing. At its best it chases at the coat-tails of science. The philosopher who claims to have found any aspect of the truth is a poor philosopher; the scientist, on the other hand, has no need of the truth, she builds cities, cleans the water and makes the medicine. Philosophy is revolutionary, it forever chases its tail. All structures are absurd; that speaks nothing as to their utility. People should fear philosophy, it is a narcotic of the mind; recreational use only; take it too seriously and you'll lose your footing.

"O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's."

Well said, penfold.

I appreciate philosophy myself, and have spent happy hours puzzling over philosophy books. However, I find the overuse of philosophical jargon to be an impediment to discussion rather than a facilitator of it.  I guess that at best I might be described as a shade-tree philosopher. (And not a very good one at that.)

Quote from: "penfold"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Philosophy is nothing. At its best it chases at the coat-tails of science. The philosopher who claims to have found any aspect of the truth is a poor philosopher; the scientist, on the other hand, has no need of the truth, she builds cities, cleans the water and makes the medicine. Philosophy is revolutionary, it forever chases its tail. All structures are absurd; that speaks nothing as to their utility. People should fear philosophy, it is a narcotic of the mind; recreational use only; take it too seriously and you'll lose your footing.

"O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's."

I agree, except at the personal level. Perhaps the political level too. Science builds but philosophy directs.

I don't have the right mindset to appreciate philosophy. For me, philosophy is nothing more than loads of blah, blah, blah about nothing.

Quote from: "penfold"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Philosophy is nothing. At its best it chases at the coat-tails of science. The philosopher who claims to have found any aspect of the truth is a poor philosopher; the scientist, on the other hand, has no need of the truth, she builds cities, cleans the water and makes the medicine. Philosophy is revolutionary, it forever chases its tail. All structures are absurd; that speaks nothing as to their utility. People should fear philosophy, it is a narcotic of the mind; recreational use only; take it too seriously and you'll lose your footing.

"O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's."

Spot on, except for one small but critical point. Science is philosophy. The thing is, though, that science has a particular advantage over all other schools of philosophy, in that its core tenet is that it must be measured against reality. Poor Plato (or it could have been Aristotle. I forget which) didn't understand this, which is why he managed to reason that men have more teeth than women. If he'd been familiar with falsifiability, he would have looked a bit less silly in this erection, by the simple expedient of asking a female acquaintance to open her mouth and counting.

There are certain types of philosophy for which I have no time, namely those that think that things can be defined into and out of existence.

Cicero put it best when he said that there is no proposition so absurd that some philosopher won't make it.

I read this once in Thumpalumpacus' sig. "Pondering the useless in search of the obvious." It's great!

Where is Thump? He hasn't been on lately.

I'm gonna make use of WordWeb a bit here.

Philosophy:
1) A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
I'll let that pass for now.

2) The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
Sounds good on the face of it.

3) Any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation
Well I suppose it would be preferable to use a bit of 2 in arriving at 3.

Rationalise:
2) Defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning
Lying to yourself, not beneficial for a good relationship with self.

Introspection:
1) The contemplation of your own thoughts and desires and conduct
Only one definition for this one, I've probably overdone this one at times but I think that's better than undergoing it.
I would hope this is an honest appraisal of your own thoughts, and not merely self justification.

The Golden Rule (Wiki) :
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Not much of a philosophy, you can try to avoid saturated fat and dancing bananas I suppose.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "penfold"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Philosophy is nothing. At its best it chases at the coat-tails of science. The philosopher who claims to have found any aspect of the truth is a poor philosopher; the scientist, on the other hand, has no need of the truth, she builds cities, cleans the water and makes the medicine. Philosophy is revolutionary, it forever chases its tail. All structures are absurd; that speaks nothing as to their utility. People should fear philosophy, it is a narcotic of the mind; recreational use only; take it too seriously and you'll lose your footing.

"O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's."

Spot on, except for one small but critical point. Science is philosophy. The thing is, though, that science has a particular advantage over all other schools of philosophy, in that its core tenet is that it must be measured against reality. Poor Plato (or it could have been Aristotle. I forget which) didn't understand this, which is why he managed to reason that men have more teeth than women. If he'd been familiar with falsifiability, he would have looked a bit less silly in this erection, by the simple expedient of asking a female acquaintance to open her mouth and counting.

There are certain types of philosophy for which I have no time, namely those that think that things can be defined into and out of existence.

Cicero put it best when he said that there is no proposition so absurd that some philosopher won't make it.

I'm afraid that each philosophy could argue that it has an advantage over others. When you measure against "reality", what you're measuring against is your idea of reality. Science sure is a philosophy, you're quite right.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Science is philosophy. The thing is, though, that science has a particular advantage over all other schools of philosophy, in that its core tenet is that it must be measured against reality.

Well human intellectual activity is a gestalt thing, so to even try and draw lines between 'philosophy' and 'science' is always going to be more art than rule. I think the central characteristic of science is its method. Scientific method's total reliance upon empiricism excludes metaphysical questions. Bluntly the scientist needs not ask "what is an electron?" but can focus on "how does an electron behave?"

It is true that the scientific method found its earliest voice in philosophy; in fact many of those we now divide into philosophers and scientists were really both: Descartes, Bacon, Goethe, Leibniz, Newton etc... My point was not that the science and philosophy are really distinct, but that the empirical method of science yields results, so much so the world now changes out of recognition generation to generation. The metaphysicians on the other hand run circles on the same well worn problems.

I have a friend who is working his way into academic philosophy (fascinating areas - philosophy of neuroscience and philosophy of probability). The impression I get from him is that philosophy is not driven by some progressive notion of the correct answer to problems, but rather it is driven by fashion and academic politics. Maybe the workhouses of Oxford and NYU philosophy departments will one day come up with an actual answer to a fundamental question; but I'm not holding my breath.

Penfold are you saying that science is relatively no good at establishing the "what" of things, rather the "what can I do with" of things? If that's what you're saying, and it looks like you are, then I agree.

Quote from: "pilchardo"Penfold are you saying that science is relatively no good at establishing the "what" of things, rather the "what can I do with" of things? If that's what you're saying, and it looks like you are, then I agree.

Not sure I would want to commit myself to such a sweeping statement; after all science asks and answers certain kinds of "what" questions. The ATLAS project at CERN is, for example, dedicated to answering the question "what gives rise to mass?" by seeking out the Higgs. As far as I am aware there is no immediate practical application for this project.

In general though I think that the important point is this; for a question to be validly answered by science it has to point to something testable. For something to be testable it has to affect the way the cosmos behaves when examined. So for a proposition to be capable of scientific scrutiny it must be that if the proposition is true the cosmos will behave one way, if the proposition is false the cosmos will behave another way. Thus the statement "ice is less dense than liquid water" can be tested (because if it is true ice will float on water, if false it will sink). Conversely the statement "The cosmos was created by an intelligence" cannot be tested (as no matter how the cosmos behaves it will always remain possible it was designed like that). So, if the question cannot be tested then science does not have to deal with it.

However even that point of view has its problems (eg the role of theory and sciences like geology and astronomy). But this is a really deep discussion and I don't want to derail the thread. Also every time I discuss this online someone who has understood Karl Popper better than me shows up and makes me look like an idiot...

peace

Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Quote from: "penfold"Not sure I would want to commit myself to such a sweeping statement; after all science asks and answers certain kinds of "what" questions. The ATLAS project at CERN is, for example, dedicated to answering the question "what gives rise to mass?" by seeking out the Higgs. As far as I am aware there is no immediate practical application for this project.

There is certainly a potential practical application. Depending on what we actually discover about the Higgs mechanism, it may be that it at least opens the door to the possibility of achieving light speed for massive objects. I don't think it incredibly likely that this is possible, but understanding the mechanism behind mass may at least make it a scientifically plausible goal, as opposed to the pipe dream it appears to be now.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Technically, I suppose, the words science and philosophy are completely interchangeable, but I think we all know what we mean in everyday usage.  I don't see that philosophy was a precursor to science.  The two subjects evolved simultaneously and on the basis of mutual dependence, but more often than not, philosophy led the way and provided the permissions that were necessary, often in the face of religious authoritarianism, for science to develop.  Philosophy gives itself a freedom that science does not have: the ability to view the world subjectively.  That is, the ability to view the world, the universe as a subjective human brain looking outwards, not from a theoretical position of objectivity that is impossible for anyone to achieve.  Philosophy also seeks to disprove itself, just as much, if not more so than science, and contains many contradictory sub-philosophies, therefore nothing can be 'correct' in philosophy.  Most good scientists are philosophically competent and will studiously avoid claims to 'correctness', except maybe where their funding depends on it, mostly they will revert to describing how internally consistent one model of reality is as compared to another.  Science seeing itself as superior to philosophy is like science seeing itself as superior to politics - it's a politically and philosophically dangerous stance for humanity, and the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression.  I say philosophy is the senior partner in the human study of reality.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Technically, I suppose, the words science and philosophy are completely interchangeable, but I think we all know what we mean in everyday usage.  I don't see that philosophy was a precursor to science.  The two subjects evolved simultaneously and on the basis of mutual dependence, but more often than not, philosophy led the way and provided the permissions that were necessary, often in the face of religious authoritarianism, for science to develop.  Philosophy gives itself a freedom that science does not have: the ability to view the world subjectively.  That is, the ability to view the world, the universe as a subjective human brain looking outwards, not from a theoretical position of objectivity that is impossible for anyone to achieve.  Philosophy also seeks to disprove itself, just as much, if not more so than science, and contains many contradictory sub-philosophies, therefore nothing can be 'correct' in philosophy.  Most good scientists are philosophically competent and will studiously avoid claims to 'correctness', except maybe where their funding depends on it, mostly they will revert to describing how internally consistent one model of reality is as compared to another.  Science seeing itself as superior to philosophy is like science seeing itself as superior to politics - it's a politically and philosophically dangerous stance for humanity, and the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression.  I say philosophy is the senior partner in the human study of reality.

I wholly agree, philosophy has evolved alongside science throughout human history, I did not mean to make philosophy sound as if it's obsolete.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Technically, I suppose, the words science and philosophy are completely interchangeable, but I think we all know what we mean in everyday usage.  I don't see that philosophy was a precursor to science.  The two subjects evolved simultaneously and on the basis of mutual dependence, but more often than not, philosophy led the way and provided the permissions that were necessary, often in the face of religious authoritarianism, for science to develop.  Philosophy gives itself a freedom that science does not have: the ability to view the world subjectively.  That is, the ability to view the world, the universe as a subjective human brain looking outwards, not from a theoretical position of objectivity that is impossible for anyone to achieve.  Philosophy also seeks to disprove itself, just as much, if not more so than science, and contains many contradictory sub-philosophies, therefore nothing can be 'correct' in philosophy.  Most good scientists are philosophically competent and will studiously avoid claims to 'correctness', except maybe where their funding depends on it, mostly they will revert to describing how internally consistent one model of reality is as compared to another.  Science seeing itself as superior to philosophy is like science seeing itself as superior to politics - it's a politically and philosophically dangerous stance for humanity, and the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression.  I say philosophy is the senior partner in the human study of reality.

I wholly agree, philosophy has evolved alongside science throughout human history, I did not mean to make philosophy sound as if it's obsolete.

ACtually, I don't agree. Indeed, rarely have I come across such utter drivel, except from the fingers of creastionists. Frankly, this is so wrong, it's almost embarassing, and highlights precisely what I was talking about. It takes a really special kind of idiocy to give this guff any credence, especially when erecting such nonsense on technology that relies on the ridiculously counter-intuitive principles that only paying attention to reality can elucidate.

This is precisely the kind of philosophy I was talking about. The only information it can provide about the real world is the colour of the lint in one's belly-button.

In short, it's horseshit. Philosophy is for the mind. This kind of navel-gazing wingnuttery is for the mindless.

I must admit, I skimmed through it, that's what I get for doing so, now I look like a jackass.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Technically, I suppose, the words science and philosophy are completely interchangeable, but I think we all know what we mean in everyday usage.  I don't see that philosophy was a precursor to science.  The two subjects evolved simultaneously and on the basis of mutual dependence, but more often than not, philosophy led the way and provided the permissions that were necessary, often in the face of religious authoritarianism, for science to develop.  Philosophy gives itself a freedom that science does not have: the ability to view the world subjectively.  That is, the ability to view the world, the universe as a subjective human brain looking outwards, not from a theoretical position of objectivity that is impossible for anyone to achieve.  Philosophy also seeks to disprove itself, just as much, if not more so than science, and contains many contradictory sub-philosophies, therefore nothing can be 'correct' in philosophy.  Most good scientists are philosophically competent and will studiously avoid claims to 'correctness', except maybe where their funding depends on it, mostly they will revert to describing how internally consistent one model of reality is as compared to another.  Science seeing itself as superior to philosophy is like science seeing itself as superior to politics - it's a politically and philosophically dangerous stance for humanity, and the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression.  I say philosophy is the senior partner in the human study of reality.

Can you point out how many times science has resulted in massive brutality and oppression? Because I can point many, many times when philosophy prevailed over science and caused massive brutality and oppression.

Guns don't kill people. People do. Same applies here.

Quote from: "pilchardo"Guns don't kill people. People do. Same applies here.

what?

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "pilchardo"Guns don't kill people. People do. Same applies here.

what?

Now look who's asking questions.

I wanted to tear into Pilchardo but now I can't because he's restricted, I suppose that's a good thing though but I feel all deprived for some reason, oh well. Hopefully the thread continue on as i'm quite curious for Existentialist's response.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Can you point out how many times science has resulted in massive brutality and oppression? Because I can point many, many times when philosophy prevailed over science and caused massive brutality and oppression.

Thanks Ultima22689, I didn't say that science has ever resulted in massive brutality and oppression.  I said that

Quote from: "Existentialist"the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression

My choice of words was careful and deliberate.  I think that the people who lived long enough to experience an atom bomb being used against them, or those who died prematurely from military chemical experiments, and others, might legitimately judge that science has prevailed over philosophy.  I wouldn't deny them that experience or their right to make that judgement.  However, from my point of view, the descent into the view that science is superior to philosophy is a denial of the fact that a dominant and potentially brutal philosophy has already taken hold.  That was true in the case of the first use in war of the atomic bomb, and the military chemical experiments on volunteers that I'm thinking of.  It can happen in any kind of society - communist, dictatorship, democracy.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Can you point out how many times science has resulted in massive brutality and oppression? Because I can point many, many times when philosophy prevailed over science and caused massive brutality and oppression.

Thanks Ultima22689, I didn't say that science has ever resulted in massive brutality and oppression.  I said that

Quote from: "Existentialist"the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression

My choice of words was careful and deliberate.  I think that the people who lived long enough to experience an atom bomb being used against them, or those who died prematurely from military chemical experiments, and others, might legitimately judge that science has prevailed over philosophy.  I wouldn't deny them that experience or their right to make that judgement.  However, from my point of view, the descent into the view that science is superior to philosophy is a denial of the fact that a dominant and potentially brutal philosophy has already taken hold.  That was true in the case of the first use in war of the atomic bomb, and the military chemical experiments on volunteers that I'm thinking of.  It can happen in any kind of society - communist, dictatorship, democracy.

I'm sorry, I was lazy in typing but we know you didn't say that. Anywho, is that really science prevailing over philosophy? Science is a tool that humans used, we use it to create things like the car, helps develop modern medicine and it can make guns, atom bombs, biological weapons.  The people who dropped those bombs or used biological weapons or conducted heinous experiments, do you think their primary thought was "FOR SCIENCE"! When they committed terrible acts? The Nazis experimented on people for a philosophy that they were the master race. The USA dropped it's bomb on Japan under the philosophy they stood for liberty and freedom. Any FOR SCIENCE! notion was fulfilled when they first tested the atomic bomb out in deserts and islands. So how do the above examples show science prevailing over philosophy? IMHO, it sounds like opposing philosophies collided and employed science to act on those philosophies, however misguided they were.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I'm sorry, I was lazy in typing but we know you didn't say that. Anywho, is that really science prevailing over philosophy? Science is a tool that humans used, we use it to create things like the car, helps develop modern medicine and it can make guns, atom bombs, biological weapons.  The people who dropped those bombs or used biological weapons or conducted heinous experiments, do you think their primary thought was "FOR SCIENCE"! When they committed terrible acts? The Nazis experimented on people for a philosophy that they were the master race. The USA dropped it's bomb on Japan under the philosophy they stood for liberty and freedom. Any FOR SCIENCE! notion was fulfilled when they first tested the atomic bomb out in deserts and islands. So how do the above examples show science prevailing over philosophy? IMHO, it sounds like opposing philosophies collided and employed science to act on those philosophies, however misguided they were.

I think some people have done and said a lot of brutal things primarily for science.  A lot did them for philosophical reasons.  But when people say science is better than philosophy, or science is superior to philosophy, I suspect they are already on the road to perpetuating such brutalities.  I agree with you, the real battle is opposing philosophies, it's just that people who think science is superior to philosophy don't always recognise that.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I'm sorry, I was lazy in typing but we know you didn't say that. Anywho, is that really science prevailing over philosophy? Science is a tool that humans used, we use it to create things like the car, helps develop modern medicine and it can make guns, atom bombs, biological weapons.  The people who dropped those bombs or used biological weapons or conducted heinous experiments, do you think their primary thought was "FOR SCIENCE"! When they committed terrible acts? The Nazis experimented on people for a philosophy that they were the master race. The USA dropped it's bomb on Japan under the philosophy they stood for liberty and freedom. Any FOR SCIENCE! notion was fulfilled when they first tested the atomic bomb out in deserts and islands. So how do the above examples show science prevailing over philosophy? IMHO, it sounds like opposing philosophies collided and employed science to act on those philosophies, however misguided they were.

I think some people have done and said a lot of brutal things primarily for science.  A lot did them for philosophical reasons.  But when people say science is better than philosophy, or science is superior to philosophy, I suspect they are already on the road to perpetuating such brutalities.  I agree with you, the real battle is opposing philosophies, it's just that people who think science is superior to philosophy don't always recognise that.

Can you think of any examples of notable brutality in the name of science? People have committed brutality in the name of a lot of different things but I find it hard to believe that any group of people did truly heinous crimes primarily or only for the purpose of advancing science. Science is not by default superior  to philosophy however, anytime philosophy tries to answer questions about tangible things, like the origin of the universe, whether someone is guilty of a crime (the physical type, like murder, the line can and will blur when it comes to the civil stuff, if not being something solely for philosophy)  or anything else where one can ask for empirical information/proof of something then something is wrong and I believe it's treading on science which is bad and vice versa. If you take away the human aspect, AKA social evolution from science, like the reality it works to understand, it is cold, without ethics and has no care about life, as I said, it's a tool of mankind, the greatest tool we ever came up with. I think Philosophy helps us understand how we should use that tool , so like I said it has it's place and so does science. I think saying science is superior to philosophy and vice versa is too broad a generalization. We can use philosophy and science to cover many different things, many of these things require science or philosophy and can't be substituted with the other, when you do, you get bad results, when you do you get things like the atomic bomb and abrahamic religions (sorry theists), IMHO.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Can you think of any examples of notable brutality in the name of science? People have committed brutality in the name of a lot of different things but I find it hard to believe that any group of people did truly heinous crimes primarily or only for the purpose of advancing science. Science is not by default superior  to philosophy however, anytime philosophy tries to answer questions about tangible things, like the origin of the universe, whether someone is guilty of a crime (the physical type, like murder, the line can and will blur when it comes to the civil stuff, if not being something solely for philosophy)  or anything else where one can ask for empirical information/proof of something then something is wrong and I believe it's treading on science which is bad and vice versa. If you take away the human aspect, AKA social evolution from science, like the reality it works to understand, it is cold, without ethics and has no care about life, as I said, it's a tool of mankind, the greatest tool we ever came up with. I think Philosophy helps us understand how we should use that tool , so like I said it has it's place and so does science. I think saying science is superior to philosophy and vice versa is too broad a generalization. We can use philosophy and science to cover many different things, many of these things require science or philosophy and can't be substituted with the other, when you do, you get bad results, when you do you get things like the atomic bomb and abrahamic religions (sorry theists), IMHO.

I don't really lay brutal consequences of the atom bomb at the door of the scientists who invented it, more at the representatives of the ruling class that used it.  The justifications for its use are often cold, mathematical and with no care for life, thereby co-opting the stereotypical view of the science that invented it that you refer to above.  Actually I think scientists probably have more ethical awareness than the politicians who ordered the attacks.  I was also thinking of the Porton Down experiments (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7192982.stm), where again I think a distorted view of science as being cold and unethical was allowed to prevail and resulted in many premature deaths.  In my view it is entirely the prerogative of the victims to say that science killed them.  That is, if they lived long enough to say it.  And then, I suppose, their loved ones.  I would take a different view and blame the philosophies of those that ordered the experiments, not science itself.  All I'm saying is, there's a philosophy that exists which says that science is always a good force whose boundaries must be pushed out whatever the cost to human beings.  This philosophy has many names - brutalism, totalitarianism, stalinism - but it characterised by the willingness of its followers to suspend other ethical philosophies in pursuance of a brutalist view of science, one that is, as you say, cold, ethically unaware, uncaring of life.

Philosophy is a very important thing, imo. There are many spiritual practicies that Atheists, like myself, can benefit from. But take everything with a grain of salt.

Imagining what could be, philosophizing about a certain issue, can lead you from what you originally only thought was a daydream to eventually what is a fact.

A few hundred years ago, I'm certain people were dreaming about going to the Moon, but never thought it would happen. But, lo' and behold, it did!

So...how many angels can dance around the rim of a full grown cow's nostril?


Oh, you mean real philosophy. I like it, I'm a philophilosopher, I would think.

Existentialist writes;
                             I don't really lay brutal consequences of the atom bomb at the door of the scientists who invented it, more at the representatives of the ruling class that used it. The justifications for its use are often cold, mathematical and with no care for life, thereby co-opting the stereotypical view of the science that invented it that you refer to above. Actually I think scientists probably have more ethical awareness than the politicians who ordered the attacks.            

               I'm concerned to correct a misapprehension about the use of nuclear weapons against Japan

              This period in history is of particular interest to me and I have studied many opinions in many books [most of which are in my library].

              While I understand the position you hold and recognise that opinions can differ violently, a very good case can be made for a more sanguine view that is supported by uncomfortable historical realities. These realities clearly reveal that the circumstances of these tragedies do not succumb to a type of black and white analysis. While "no care for life" might have appeared to be the case, history reveals the the cost in expected casualties of an invasion of Japan's home islands was calculated at roughly half a million on both sides in total. As it turned out, the cost in Japanese lives was less than the cost in lives of US sustained incendiary bombing of Tokyo in early 1945.  

              The two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were populated not by hundreds of thousands of innocents but by hundreds of thousands of arms and munitions workers. These two cities were huge centres of manufacturing of war materials and associated industries. Their destruction saw Japan deprived of the flower of her skilled technicians, engineers and scientists. Only the city of Kokura rivalled their importance and had been one of the original targets.

              Demonstration of a bomb would have incurred the risk of it failing and be a significant propaganda boost for the flagging IJA and IJN. Thus a demonstration was rejected.

              Starving the populace to its knees with an embargo would have taken months and Russia, after the surrender of Germany, was pouring divisions of troops and armour east to invade Japanese held Manchuria. Its advance in this region was swift and unstoppable. Stalin expected Russia to share in the occupation of Japan even though they had contributed little to her defeat. Both the Japanese and the Allies feared this imminent threat. The japanese, firstly  because of the IJA's merciless occupation of eastern Russia during WW1 at the behest of the Allies and secondly because of her stunning victory over Russia in 1904-5 in the Russo-Japanese War during which the IJN sank 95% of the Imperial Russian Naval force off the Straits of Tsushima. The Allies, and particularly MacArthur, were implacably opposed to a shared occupation of Japan with Russia after the war. It had proven an administrative and political disaster in occupied Europe.

               The Japanese knew that a Russian occupation would be merciless and the War Cabinet always had that threat formost in their considerations. They harboured equally fears of an Allied occupation [basically a US one] and a terrible vengeance exacted by them. Surrender to China was out of the question for her vengeance would have been worst of all if indeed the civil war there had not distracted that nation. Japan had no one to whom she could appeal for mediation. She was friendless and isolated and desperate.

              It was upon the fall of Singapore [Feb 14th 1942] and very close to the maximum spread of the expanding Japanese Empire that the first suggestions for a negotiated peace was mentioned by a few officers of the IJA. It came to nothing. The first serious suggestions surfaced in May 1944 when a very secret group was set up by the army. It was designated G20 and it was charged to investigate the prospects of a negotiated peace. It produced a paper "Measures for Termination of the Greater East Asia War". Upon being consulted about it, Tojo exploded in indignation and shipped the leader of the group, Col.Makoto Matsutani, to the Chinese front. The others were arrested by the Kempeitai and put in jail or demoted from authority. Up to the day of his death by Seppuku, Hideki Tojo was a power to be reckoned with and sabotaged much of the negotiations with Russia to broker a peace deal with the Allies. But Tojo really needn't have bothered. Molotov had no intention of dealing with the Japanese negotiators and delayed appointments and negotiations at every step. At the very last approach by the Japanese on 8th.Aug 1945 Molotov rejected the mediation proposal and declared war on Japan. Russia wanted a slice of the action without doing much to earn it. It sought revenge perhaps for the ignominious destruction of its great navy in Tsushima Strait in 1904 at the height of the Russo-Japanese War.
                         
             Just prior to Russia's declaration of war, the Potsdam Declaration had been published and communicated to Japan on 26th.July. I won't place it all here, it is too long a document. But it is interesting to note that Douglas Fairbanks Jr, the film star, contributed much to the preamble and opening phraseology of the Declaration. The Japanese War Cabinet decided to publish an expurgated version of it and it appeared in newspapers on 28th.Jul. with the news that the government would "mokusatsu" it. This word in Japanese could variously be interpeted as "To shelve it", "to take no notice of", "to ignore by keeping silent", "to treat with silent contempt". The final cabinet release read in part; "The Potsdam Declaration is only an adaptation of the Cairo Declaration and our government will place no importance on it. In short, we will 'mokusatsu' that". In part, the Declaration provided that the Allies had no intention of enslaving the Japanese as a race or destroying them as a nation, but they would brook neither delay nor compromise. Failure to agree would bring prompt and utter destruction. Japanese newspapers headlined that Japan would ignore the Declaration. In the USA the ignore was interpreted as rejection and plans went forward for the deployment of Little Boy and Fat Man  
                         
           The very same administrative debacle that comprised the divided administration of Germany threatened Japan. Wouldn't China want a piece of the action if Russia got it so easily? China had a far more legitimate claim.
                         
           Japan had prepared well for an Allied invasion of its homeland. It expected it after the Battle of the Marianas [the Marianas Turkey Shoot the Americans called it], and their defeat at Saipan and then Okinawa.
                         
          One of the biggest stumbling blocks was the intransigence of the armed forces of Japan. Even after the Hiroshima bomb they fumbled investigations into what sort of bomb it was, physicists were sent to  investigate, reports were dilatory and inconclusive. They were not convinced by Allied broadcasts of a nuclear device, an atomic bomb, being dropped on Hiroshima. War Minister, Gen.Korechika Anami and all his cabinet colleagues were insistent on fighting to the death. Principally because the Potsdam Declaration would not guarantee the life of the Emperor or the national polity.                              

          In the home islands of Japan, extensive and wide-spread stocks of small and medium arms and ammunition had been stored in secret. In excess of 4000 kamikaze planes were prepared in disguised airfields. Propaganda had ensured that every capable Japanese was to die in defence of their homeland. Estimates of the cost in lives upon an invasion of the islands vary widely but even the most conservative provided a figure close to half a million combined Allied and Japanese casualties. The occupation in this way would have been a tactical and logistical nightmare that could have seen the Allies not only fighting the IJA and every Japanese civilian but perhaps well supplied Russian troops as well. Be assured, Russia was far from an exhausted war-weary nation. Stalin had an almost endless supply of manpower and his factories, moved east away from German reach, were churning out vast quantities of war materials.

          As it was, Russia re-occupied all of Sakhalin and the Kamchatka peninsula [Russian territory anyway] and all the Kurile Islands [mostly Japanese territory]

          The situation was coming to the boil and could prove very costly to the Allies if no immediate action was taken. Even after the dropping of the first bomb the Japanese War Cabinet was unbelieving of the power unleashed. There were still hard-line figures arguing for an all out effort in the group and a very real fear among each one of an armed forces rebellion at the very suggestion of a surrender. Home propaganda had left the Japanese incapable of understanding how critical the situation was and how near was utter destruction and utter defeat.

          Harry Truman was a tough, honest and hard-working President, one to be proud of as a successor to FDR. I regard him as a man for his time. He had a fair idea how controversial his actions would be and how some historians would treat him. I ask that you try to understand the motives of the leading figures of that time and of the US public. That not one nation involved condemned the use of nuclear weapons at the time is a testament to the understanding they had of the situation as it had evolved over the war years and the problems that arose over the surrender. It is not an unreasonable calculation to make that the use of these weapons actually saved lives.
               
         It is a legitimate argument to raise the issue of the aftermath of the surrender, particularly with regard to the effects of nuclear radiation and the deaths and disfigurement of so many in the years that followed. Just as one might raise the continuing horrors that ensued after the war among many civilian populations of Manchurian cities and towns from the Japanese experiments in chemical and biological warfare. Uncountable thousands of innocents died horribly of awful diseases like bubonic plague with the effects lasting for many years after the surrender. It is to offend history and the memory of those involved not to have a good understanding of contributing events. I hope you can be a little less convinced of political perfidy and bloodthirstiness after this all too brief dissertation. There were innumerable faults on both sides and in a peculiar way, honour on both sides to some degree.
         
         Japan wanted eighteen months or so of conflict and conquest and a negotiated peace. She seriously miscalculated the wrath and determination of her enemies and the vengeance demanded by the conquered. It is fortunate for Japan that the latter was ameliorated by higher concerns. It is a tribute to the Allied occupation that not one Allied serviceman was killed in anger by a Japanese civilian during the first twelve months of occupation.
                 
         If you have a mind, I recommend THE DAY OF THE BOMB  by Dan Kurtzman; BEHIND JAPAN'S SURRENDER by Lester Brooks, JAPAN'S LONGEST DAY authored by Japanese historians led by Kazutoshi Hando of The Pacific War Research Society and published by Kodansha International Ltd. and THE DAY MAN LOST  by the same authors.
               
         As you can see, East-West relations, particularly the War in the Pacific 1941-45 and the long list of events that lead thereto, is/are of great interest to me. I hope I have encouraged you to a little better understanding of an issue that is utterly unsusceptible of a simple and cursory analysis.
               
         Simplified, the situation was...............

[A] Invade Japan home islands..............RISK: Extremely high cost and difficulty and possible conflict with Russia
Starve into submission..............RISK: Russian invasion and indefinite occupation.
[C] Demonstration of bomb...........RISK: Failure of demonstration.
[D] Wait for Japan to surrender for some other reason...............RISK: See

        All I'm saying is, there's a philosophy that exists which says that science is always a good force whose boundaries must be pushed out whatever the cost to human beings. This philosophy has many names - brutalism, totalitarianism, stalinism - but it characterised by the willingness of its followers to suspend other ethical philosophies in pursuance of a brutalist view of science, one that is, as you say, cold, ethically unaware, uncaring of life.

        May I respectfully suggest that it is a skewed view that would omit communism and capitalism from your list. Stalinism was both brutal and totalitarian, as was Maoism to some extent, although, IMHO, the latter had a better understanding of his problems and their solutions, even though he made some terrible mistakes. I would further suggest that some religious convictions have filled the bill of cold, ethically unaware and uncaring of life when the doctrines they espouse face violation and threaten godly authority.

       I apologise for the diversion into history. My excuse is that a certain series of historical events were in danger of being misused as exemplars of heinous acts when history already is replete with much better examples. I am in management's hands here and will accept any ruling they make if necessary.