Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Hereandnow]

Steve3007 wrote

To help the discussion, could you give an example in which philosophy has, in your view, mistakenly or incorrectly yielded to science? What would it actually mean for philosophy, or anything else, to yield to science? Science is a formalization of the simple process of observing the world, spotting patterns and regularities in those observations and trying to use those regularities to predict future observations. What would it mean to yield to that?

First, it's not about the scientific method, which I use to put on my shoes in the morning. This kind of thinking we associate with science has its basis in everyday life and there is no escaping this unless one breaks with living itself. It is the hypothetical deductive method and it is distinctively tied to a pragmatic structure of experience. It is future looking, just as experience is inherently future looking (in our Heraclitean world)

Empirical reductive thinking is what I have in mind. By this I mean a dismissiveness of what cannot be confirmed in "observation" (keeping in mind that the term observation is not in itself this prohibitive). Philosophy is apriori, not empirical, and so it takes the world as it is given in empirical science and elsewhere (observations of mental events) and asks, what is required in order for this to be the case? For experience has structure, there are questions about the origin of experience, paradoxes that arise on the assumption that empirical observation is the foundation of knowledge such as: From whence comes knowledge of the world? Observation. What IS this? Brain activity (keeping it short). So when you observe a brain it is brain activity doing the observing? Yes. Then what confirms the brain activity that produces the conclusion that it is brain activity that produces empirical observations. Brain activity. A brain is confirmable as an observation based entity, and that makes it just as empirical as everything else. It is contingent, therefore, in need of something else to confirm IT. That is, it has no foundation, nothing beneath it, and to ignore this is simply to take a wrong turn.
Science cannot discuss ethics. Of course, the scientific method is always in place, and one can produce a hedonic calculator to determine utility, but ethics is not a demonstrable science for value is not empirical. The WHAT is ethics?, of course, is what I am talking about. Not the what to do about it.
Science as a touchstone of what is Real systematically leaves out finitude/eternity, transcendence, metaphysics, ontology, the inevitable foundationlessness of all enterprises: the reason why these sound so alien to your common sense is not because they have no presence in the world or inherent fascination bearing content. Rather, it is because these have been systematically put out of relevance, utterly side lined by the technological success and the endless, unquestioning business it produces. We are, as a science infatuated culture, endlessly distracted, and meaning has become trivialized in this. We just assume there is nothing to see because the meanings I am talking about are not empirical.
And my complaint goes on. As to who, I suppose it would be the Daniel Dennetts, the Richard Dawkins', the analytic tradition that rests with the assumption that parallels that of empirical science: to know is to know MORE. and more is parasitical on empirical science.

My take is that philosophy is already done. It has shown us that there is no progress to make empirically. The finale: science presupposes value. Why bother with ANYthing? The answer we seek in philosophy is not cognitive, but affective. Not more, but more penetrating. What we seek in all our endeavors is not distraction but consummation of what we are, and this rests with value, not propositional knowledge, but affect, meaning.

[Terrapin Station]

Philosophy is apriori, not empirical,

As we suddenly dismiss a huge percentage of philosophers, haha.

[Pattern-chaser]

All this means that when science makes its moves to "say" what the world is, it is only right within the scope of its field. But philosophy, which is the most open field, has no business yielding to this any more than to knitting "science" or masonry. Philosophy is all inclusive theory, and the attempt to fit such a thing into a scientific paradigm is simply perverse.

Science: know your place! It is not philosophy.

I can't disagree with you, but I fear the analytical/science/objective crew will object. They don't like it when anyone even implies that there are areas of knowledge that science cannot address. I wish you luck!

[Terrapin Station]

What an a priori approach can tell you about is how the philosopher in question happens to think. The mental dispositions they have. It makes it like autobiographical psychological analysis.

[Pattern-chaser]

you have implied that science does not know its place.

It's not "science" that has done this, it's its practitioners and followers. Science has achieved a huge amount. This can be empirically verified, and I see no need to justify it further. It has been (and remains) so successful that it is often applied when it is not the appropriate tool for the job. This is not the fault of science. And when politicians claim they're 'following the science', as they have done recently, this is often another misapplication of science.

Science is a great invention, and it has proved its worth time after time. Science is, IMO, a Good Thing. But it is not universally applicable. I think this topic is attempting to address the misapplication of science, not to attack science of itself. This topic stands in direct opposition to those who claim that science is the only acceptable tool to investigate and understand life, the universe, and everything. [Yes, there are such people.]

Just my two pennyworth.

[Hereandnow]

Steve3007 wrote
As we know, ontology is the study of how things are and what things exist, as opposed to, for example, the study of how we know things or how things appears to be or the study of our experiences. So, "thinking about what the world is" would be thinking about onotology, yes? So in the first sentence above are you saying that science involves "thinking about what the world is"? If so, the last sentence contradicts this doesn't it?

I defend a phenomenologist's definition of ontology: what IS, is a process (one way to put it). To even bring up a thing as existing is to do so in a process of thought, experience and to think beyond this, to some affirmation of what Really is, is bad metaphysics; an empty spinning of wheels.
Ontology is a term that reminds me of Kuhn's "paradigm": taken up everywhere once achieved popularity. These days, marketers, education theorists, everyone talks about an ontology of this or that, and by this they mean what something is foundationally in their field. But philosophical ontology is tricky. In my thinking (always, already derivative) ontology is a study of the structures of experience. It is reductive talk about everything, and a scientist's reductive talk would be physicalism or materialism, mine is process: for materialism presupposes the process of thought that produces the very idea. ALL things presuppose this, and this is why process thinking (Heraclitus' world) is AS reductive as one can get. It is the bottom line of analysis just prior to going religious.

This, coming after "Science does not do ontology" would appear to be intended to build on/expand on that statement. You appear to be equating "ontology" with "taking the structure of experience itself as an object of study" (and saying that science does neither). But ontology is not about studying "the structure of experience" is it? It's not entirely clear what you mean by "studying the structure of experience", but it doesn't sound like ontology

The assumption is, one cannot step outside of experience; the very thought is absurd. And experience is not a thing. Things appear before us, IN experience, but thingness presupposes experience. What IS foundational, is not a thing, but the process in which things are recognized as things. I think we live in interpretation of things, and this interpretation is also what things essentially are.

So you propose that science presupposes "the structure of experience"? Studying Jupiter's atmosphere would entail looking at Jupiter's atmosphere. How does stating that "inquiry would be specific, exclusive, formulaic." relate to this? Are you saying that in order to study the atmosphere of Jupiter we should look at something other than the atmosphere of Jupiter? Or perhaps look at everything? Do you apply this to all study? Can you see that you're not making any kind of coherent argument here? Do you want to?

All thinking is about something. If we are looking for what philosophy should be about, we find that empirical science is too exclusive of the body of what the world is. Philosophy needs to be about the most general, inclusive perspective. To get to this level, one has to put aside the incidentals, the tokens, if you will, of what the world is, and physics, biology and the rest becomes tokens of the broader inclusiveness.

Not to me. The above assertion may well be right, but you certainly haven't constructed an argument to demonstrate it.

The only way to do that would be to address all of your issues on the matter. That takes time.

[Terrapin Station]

you have implied that science does not know its place.

It's not "science" that has done this, it's its practitioners and followers. Science has achieved a huge amount. This can be empirically verified, and I see no need to justify it further. It has been (and remains) so successful that it is often applied when it is not the appropriate tool for the job. This is not the fault of science. And when politicians claim they're 'following the science', as they have done recently, this is often another misapplication of science.

Science is a great invention, and it has proved its worth time after time. Science is, IMO, a Good Thing. But it is not universally applicable. I think this topic is attempting to address the misapplication of science, not to attack science of itself. This topic stands in direct opposition to those who claim that science is the only acceptable tool to investigate and understand life, the universe, and everything. [Yes, there are such people.]

Just my two pennyworth.

I wouldn't say it's the only applicable tool (heck, I wouldn't have studied philosophy otherwise), but I'd say that science, just like philosophy, is applicable to everything. The differences are in the methodologies, not in what are apt or inapt focuses for those methodologies.

[Pattern-chaser]

Science is a great invention, and it has proved its worth time after time. Science is, IMO, a Good Thing. But it is not universally applicable. I think this topic is attempting to address the misapplication of science, not to attack science of itself. This topic stands in direct opposition to those who claim that science is the only acceptable tool to investigate and understand life, the universe, and everything. [Yes, there are such people.]

I wouldn't say it's the only applicable tool (heck, I wouldn't have studied philosophy otherwise), but I'd say that science, just like philosophy, is applicable to everything. The differences are in the methodologies, not in what are apt or inapt focuses for those methodologies.

Yes and no. Science is not applicable to metaphysics, morality or religion, for a start. That's not a shortcoming of science. No tool can address every task.

[Hereandnow]

Sculptor1 wrote
You have not demonstrated that our hegemony is based on science.
You seem to imply, totally wrongly that science is absurd. Again, you have done nothing to support this.
Then you have implied that science does not know its place. Again, nothing but a bold assertion back up with nothing.
If I were to characterise our current hegemony in this arena I would point to the absurd hegemony of anti-science and pseudo-science which seem to infect socail media like a virus.

You vast claims for philosophy ignore the many occaisons where philosphy has had to bow down to the discoveries of science and modify its ways.

I would ask you to read more closely and dispassionately. I never even hinted that science was absurd. The bold assertions may have issues. I wonder, what are they?
Social media? Look, you have others matters bearing on this that I have no part in. If you want to raise another related problem, then I am pretty much open to anything. I come here to argue; I like thinking and writing. So argue a case. My thinking is overreaching because....; empirical science odes provide adequate paradigms for philosophical matters because....

[Steve3007]

To even bring up a thing as existing is to do so in a process of thought

Ontology, as conventionally understood, is the study of what exists. Obviously being "the study" means that "the study of Ontology" is a process of thought. That doesn't mean that Ontology is about thought. That would be like saying that woodwork is not about working wood. It's about thinking about woodwork.

The assumption is, one cannot step outside of experience

The assumption of what? Of science? That would be like saying that the assumption of woodwork is that one cannot step outside of wood. Science, by definition, is largely about sensory experiences in the sense that it is empirical. That doesn't mean you can't "step outside". If you want to try to do that in some way you're free to do so. You just won't be doing science then. There's no law saying that you have to.

All thinking is about something. If we are looking for what philosophy should be about, we find that empirical science is too exclusive of the body of what the world is. Philosophy needs to be about the most general, inclusive perspective. To get to this level, one has to put aside the incidentals, the tokens, if you will, of what the world is, and physics, biology and the rest becomes tokens of the broader inclusiveness.

You're talking as if somebody has told you that philosophy has to be all about science. Obviously it doesn't. But obviously it makes sense for it to be informed by science's findings for the same reason that it makes sense for it to be informed by any other findings.

So I still don't see what the point of the OP is. Its title seems to suggest that it's a defense of the proposition "Science has hegemony and that's absurd". But maybe it isn't. I'm none the wiser!

[Steve3007]

I never even hinted that science was absurd.

But its hegemony is, yes?

[Hereandnow]

Terrapin Station wrote
Your response to me makes a lot more sense to me than your initial post did, but it has way too much stuff to address. Seriously, there's enough material there for probably 100 different lengthy discussion threads.

Sure, but it is, if you pardon the locution, thematically limited. There are specific claims and specific ideas.

Let's take just one claim:
Hereandnow wrote: ↑Yesterday, 9:45 pm
to do so would be to step out of the logic and language that makes thought even possible.
People say such things often, but it always seems very curious to me. It seems like there must be people who only think linguistically--because otherwise why would they make claims like "language is necessary to make thought even possible," but not everyone only thinks linguistically. Now, if there are people who only think linguistically, they probably won't believe that this is not the case for everyone, and there's probably not much we can do about that aside from working on getting them to realize that it wouldn't have to be the case that all thinking is the same for all entities that can think. This is easier said than done, though, because there seems to be a common personality/disposition that has a hard time with the notion that not everyone is essentially the same.

In order for me to make sense of this, you would have to make sense of thought without logic or language. Thinking is defined by what we find in the world. There is instinct, motor habits, reflexes, what a feral child might possess, true. The feral child would be the most interesting.

At any rate, it is not so much the explicit use of logic and language that is being argued here, but the structure of experience itself: Get up in the morning, see the time in the clock on the wall, anticipate your affairs for the day, and so on. All of this has the structure of rational organization. Unspoken "knowledge" is implicit assertions, conditionals, negations and so on. And this rests with what is already there, in memory that constitutes one's familiarity with the world. Memory, recollection, repetition, recognition, habit, these are experiential matters that are descriptive of the cow in the meadow, not making any thought, part of the experiential "world".

Also, the notion that we can't observe or perceive things without actively thinking about them, a la applying concepts, applying meanings, having a linguistic internal commentary about them, etc. would need to be supported, but I don't know how we'd support that aside from simply brute-force, stomping-our-foot-down-and-not-budging claiming it. It's a lot like the claim that all thought is linguistic. Maybe some people's minds work so that they can't simply perceive things without applying concepts/meanings, etc., and again, they're just not going to believe that not everyone's mental experience is just like theirs.

That IS an interesting point. I would argue that one cannot perceive without apperceiving. When an infant lies in the crib, there is already, as soon as synaptic connections are completed and events in the womb recorded, an apperceptive presence, hence, a person, albeit a thinly constructed one. But what makes the whole affair recognizable, a case of experiencing reality is the combination of the familiarity of appreception and the essential features of the mind, which are cognitive, affective and so on. It is exactly the opposite of what I argue to say that there are "faculties" of reason as if the whole possessed this rational machinery. Rather, it is a stream that can be analyzed, and the analysis yields an abstraction from the whole.
If there is no presence of logic, does this precludes assertions and the rest? Even a non symbolic mentality, as with that of a cow, has a proto rationality: it looks up from a worn patch of ground for greener places, associates green with food; and the other typical behavior. It could be argued that in all this prelinguistic behavior, the "knowing" cow is in possession of a kind of protologic.
But this doesn't really go to the matter about experience as the final ground for reductive attempts.

But at any rate, I don't see how we can claim such things without needing pretty good supports of them over the contradictory claims (that not all thought is linguistic (and/or logical) and that not all perception is theory-laden, or accompanied by thoughts a la concepts, meanings, etc.)

I would argue all thought is theory laden. One only has to first define theory as a forward looking interpretative position, and then, simply examine non problematic examples of thought. After all, it is from this examination that we even have a discipline called logic at all. Logic is inferred from experience.

[Hereandnow]

Terrapin Station wrote


Certainly claiming such things without good support and then just poetically, kind of stream-of-consciously transitioning to other obliquely-related ideas, also without good support, and then others and others and others, all linked with as many prepositional phrases as possible, all while avoiding periods for as long as possible, doesn't really work as philosophy in my opinion.

It is method of analysis, and the "good support" you seek lies in the argument itself. What is there, in our midst as experiencing people, is taken up and looked at to see what sense can be made of it. This is why logic is a philosophical discipline: the proof lies in the thought constructions about the way we think. It is a step backwards, asking, well, what does this presuppose if it is true?
it is not at all unlike other thinking in that we analyze all the time, only here, it is basic questions, basic assumptions.

[Sculptor1]

you have implied that science does not know its place.

It's not "science" that has done this, it's its practitioners and followers. Science has achieved a huge amount. This can be empirically verified, and I see no need to justify it further. It has been (and remains) so successful that it is often applied when it is not the appropriate tool for the job. This is not the fault of science. And when politicians claim they're 'following the science', as they have done recently, this is often another misapplication of science.

Science is a great invention, and it has proved its worth time after time. Science is, IMO, a Good Thing. But it is not universally applicable. I think this topic is attempting to address the misapplication of science, not to attack science of itself. This topic stands in direct opposition to those who claim that science is the only acceptable tool to investigate and understand life, the universe, and everything. [Yes, there are such people.]

Just my two pennyworth.

I think you might want to direct that to the person who opened the thread.

[Atla]

In my thinking (always, already derivative) ontology is a study of the structures of experience.

Depends what you mean by that. Technically, experience has no actual structure, just as the outside world has no actual structure. (Probably.) Our own mind/thinking is/creates that apparent structure, but it's not set in stone, for example I frequently change the structure of my experiences using various techniques.

Avoiding such traps is one reason why philosophy shouldn't be purely a priori.