Scientism

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the problem is that we don't know in advance which philosophies can be rejected. There are a few problems:
1) Philosophy usually depends on intuitions to provide something to manipulate, and our intuitions can shift.
2) We don't know all of the arguments and counter-arguments that can be used on a topic. Most past arguments were later invalidated.
3) Empirical evidence can contradict our intuitions, and often we do come to very counter-intuitive conclusions because of how evidence enters the mix.

There is a myriad variety of forms of nihilism, and as far as I'm aware, few (or none) of them have been debunked.

Could you provide some examples of philosophical theories which are certain?

Having done this, you'd also need to explain why the vast majority of philosophers do not concern themselves with trying to provide answers that are 100% certain, since that's what you say the realm of philosophy is.

.

Surely you realized I was being facetious? (Well, at least partially facetious)

But yeah, your characterization of philosophy is way off base. If you want 100% certainty, you go to mathematics, not philosophy. And what meaningful questions has philosophy answered? Science answers a lot more questions, and it gives us answers that are actually useful and can be applied to our lives rather than thick tomes filled with rambling nonsense.


Low level of meaning? Understanding the world around us has no meaning? What an empty life you must lead. The ability to create technological wonders and to develop medications that save the lives of children is meaningless in your eyes?

I'll admit I was being exaggerative when I said fact. I'll admit not all philosophy exists.

and the version of nihilism that has been debunked is the belief that absolutely nothing exists, which was disproved by the whole "I think, therefore I am, and if I should doubt that I am thinking, doubting is itself a form of thinking, therefor I am." routine.

Orwell: things like facetiousness and sarcasm are often lost when converted to text

and I do not consider scientific discoveries of no importance. They just aren't as important as things like good and evil and the nature of one's true self. that's what I meant by low level of meaning: low RELATIVE level of meaning. I apologize for not making this clear.

I could tell Orwell was being facetious. Then again, I am the wittiest man alive.

I see what you did there

There is an extreme form of metaphysical nihilism (described in the second paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Metaphysical_nihilism - bear in mind that the second paragraph is making a very different claim to the first) which denies the existence of anything, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't around before Descartes. I've never seen the idea explored outside of that wikipedia article, so I don't think it's taken very seriously by most philosophers.

I don't know where the idea originated, but I'm not sure it's something to be debunked, exactly. It seems to me to be more about the logical status of the concept of 'existence' vs 'non-existence' relative to other commonsense concepts... so maybe the point is just to illustrate an inconsistency that needs to be resolved. I can't imagine how anybody could seriously argue that absolutely nothing exists in any way whatsoever.

.

Last edited by you_are_what_you_is on 04 Oct 2010, 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They are also often lost when talking to autistics.


I disagree, because a) philosophy has not succeeded in giving us a very useful notion of good and evil, so even if we accept that such things would be more important, that still leaves philosophy useless b) science tells us more about the nature of ourselves than philosophy has, and c) I actually do regard practical scientific advancements as more important than such abstract musings. The difference between mRNA and miRNA has a better chance of saving your life than the difference between good and evil does.

I was more talking religion when I said good and evil and I wasn't talking biology when I said one's true self, though biology is hand's down my favorite field.

OK, but religion also hasn't given us a wonderfully clear notion of good and evil. Also, biology tells us plenty about our true self.

Lastly: typical, you like the least scientific of the sciences. Don't you know that all of science is physics or stamp collecting?

Oh, Orwell, you and your liberal Calvinist antics!*

"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." - Daniel C. Dennett

One of the main reasons philosophy lacks "practical" achievements is because once any field of discourse has been conceptually clarified to such a degree where one can meaningfully study it in an intersubjective & prediction-evaluationg way, it becomes a "science". Science is so great because it steals the end products of philosophy!

ENDNOTE
* This doesn't real fit, but I've wanted to say it for months.

Science doesn't steal from philosophy. It rescues ideas from the negligent custody of addle-brained musers and nurtures them to reach their full potential.

I guess I see true self as more of a spiritual or metaphysical thing than you do. I would argue that religion does give pretty clear answers about good and evil, but the nature of the topic is such that some level of ambiguity is almost always going to exist.

and I like biology because I have an overactive imagination and the more I learn about what organisms have existed, the more I wonder about what organism could exist.

though I've recently become more and more intrigued by chemistry

What is "good"? What is "evil"?

Is cannibalism evil? I think most people in the modern world would say "yes", although the Aztecs and the Fore might disagree.

According to Catholic doctrine, when the Host is consumed during the ritual of Communion, the bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Christ's human body. This is, plainly, cannibalism. Is Roman Catholic Communion evil?

Can you name a "good" that remains good under all circumstances?

On the other hand, take any circle you can draw, no matter how large or how small, and divide the circumference by the diameter. The result will always be pi. The speed of light in a vacuum will always be c. Any object dropped in a 1-g field, absent air resistance, will accelerate downward at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. These are facts - and they were not reached by someone sitting in a little room somewhere, using principles of pure logic with no reference to the outside universe.

It doesn't work with the "raw materials" of thought. It works with intellectual material that has already been refined by philosophers.

PRODUCTION CHAIN OF IDEAS

Raw Ideas ------------------------------------ Secondary Product ------------------------- Tertiary Product --------------------------
__________ Philosophical clarification_______________________________ Scientific processes__________________________________ Engineers

post-Tertiary ---------------------- Your blender
____________________ Technicians

Well, I didn't say to be irresponsible...

I don't personally see lack of qualification as an issue. I believe anybody who takes the time to investigate and understand an issue is qualified to make a rational assessment of it.