Has Philosophy Lost Its Mind?

[Steve3007]

I was more intrigued by the bizarre holocaust comment.

Such comments may be intriguing, but they're a sideshow to the main feature.

[Syamsu]

You can look up the wiki on postmodernism to see that it was popularized as a reaction to ww2. And ww2 was all about social darwinism. With the Japanese as well as with the Germans.

Ofcourse now social darwinism is surpressed by postmodernism, backed up with the memory of the holocaust. That is why you can pretend social darwinism is now not an issue. But the cost of that is to give up on hard scientific fact, which the original poster was complaining about.

Actually underneath the suppression by postmodernism, social darwinism is still a major issue. As you can also see in China, where the history of the holocaust does not have as much relevance to people's experience. In China eugenics is very much alive, with large support from the scientific community.

[Terrapin Station]

You can look up the wiki on postmodernism to see that it was popularized as a reaction to ww2.

So, the first of many problems with your post is that wikipedia says nothing like that. In fact, there's no mention whatsoever of World War II on the wikipedia page for postmodernism. There is a mention of World War I by way of a quote from Arnold J. Toynbee. The merits of that quote are debatable, of course.

[Syamsu]

ok, well the wiki has changed then.

It makes perfect sense.

[Terrapin Station]

ok, well the wiki has changed then.

It makes perfect sense.

So, at any rate, your bag is basically to campaign for "racist" views?

[Pattern-chaser]

Has philosophy lost its mind?

Why do you come to a philosophy forum to bash philosophy? Serious question. What is your point?

There is a group of people - an informal group, no uniforms, slogans or other formal organised stuff - who seem to believe that science is the only acceptable and effective tool for intellectual inquiry. These people are analytic philosophers, scientists and (sadly) sciencists too. Their position is that philosophy is an historical means of intellectual inquiry that has been superceded by science. They recognise no tool other than science as being acceptable, and some of them have started to challenge philosophy wherever they see it, trying to prevent its use, and turn any such use into the use of science instead. Philosophy is not their only target. They also recommend science as a substitute for religion, politics and moral/ethical studies.

I do not know if Marvin_Edwards subscribes to this group of exclusive-scientists, but the OP suggests that perhaps he might. If so, it answers your question: "why come to a philosophy forum to bash philosophy?" The answer is: to get rid of philosophy, and replace it with science.

For myself, I cannot see why anyone would wish to eschew the use of any and all tools of intellectual inquiry. Where one tool proves less effective, another might be more useful. Where one tool cannot get a grip on a particular issue, another might. And so on. But the sciencists persist.

[Syamsu]

ok, well the wiki has changed then.

It makes perfect sense.

So, at any rate, your bag is basically to campaign for "racist" views?

In most racism the content of character is asserted as fact. That should properly be a matter of chosen opinion. But you can speculate about heritable different ways of deciding, that kind of racism would still be logically valid on creationist terms.

[Terrapin Station]

Has philosophy lost its mind?

Why do you come to a philosophy forum to bash philosophy? Serious question. What is your point?

There is a group of people - an informal group, no uniforms, slogans or other formal organised stuff - who seem to believe that science is the only acceptable and effective tool for intellectual inquiry. These people are analytic philosophers, scientists and (sadly) sciencists too. Their position is that philosophy is an historical means of intellectual inquiry that has been superceded by science. They recognise no tool other than science as being acceptable, and some of them have started to challenge philosophy wherever they see it, trying to prevent its use, and turn any such use into the use of science instead. Philosophy is not their only target. They also recommend science as a substitute for religion, politics and moral/ethical studies.

I do not know if @Marvin_Edwards subscribes to this group of exclusive-scientists, but the OP suggests that perhaps he might. If so, it answers your question: "why come to a philosophy forum to bash philosophy?" The answer is: to get rid of philosophy, and replace it with science.

For myself, I cannot see why anyone would wish to eschew the use of any and all tools of intellectual inquiry. Where one tool proves less effective, another might be more useful. Where one tool cannot get a grip on a particular issue, another might. And so on. But the sciencists persist.

That doesn't include all (or even most, really) analytic philosophers, by the way. There was a loose movement to "scientize" philosophy starting in the later 1800s, but it was pretty much seen as an idea with serious problems once logicism failed (logicism attempted to ground all of mathematics in logic, a la Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica), once logical positivism received pretty damaging criticism, etc.

Ironically, around the same time the sciences were increasing their philosophical quotient a la the popular adoption of instrumentalism, the increasing prevalence of LitCrit-like (structuralist, post-structuralist, deconstructionist, etc.) analyses, and so on.

[Marvin_Edwards]

My own view tends towards Scientific Antirealism (at least as I understand that term). I think this view is forced on Science by the way that Nature is observed to behave.

I'm still slowly reading the SEP article and haven't gotten to section 4 yet. But to me, the notion of "antirealism" would be something like solipsism, where external reality is being denied. So, Scientific Antirealism still seems like a self-contradiction to me. Science, by definition, pursues the knowledge of reality. The notion that there is no reality to be known undermines science. At the least, philosophy could do a little better at naming things.

But I'll see what I learn from the SEP article.

[Pattern-chaser]

That doesn't include all (or even most, really) analytic philosophers, by the way. There was a loose movement to "scientize" philosophy starting in the later 1800s, but it was pretty much seen as an idea with serious problems once logicism failed (logicism attempted to ground all of mathematics in logic, a la Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica), once logical positivism received pretty damaging criticism, etc.

Ironically, around the same time the sciences were increasing their philosophical quotient a la the popular adoption of instrumentalism, the increasing prevalence of LitCrit-like (structuralist, post-structuralist, deconstructionist, etc.) analyses, and so on.

The more I discover about named schools of philosophy, the more I dislike and despise them. I just looked up "instrumentalism" on Wikipedia, which confirmed my feelings. It described several interesting ideas, but then added some peculiar and somewhat dogmatic constraints, which I found difficult to accept. I prefer to harvest ideas as I come across them, and I am a strong advocate of cherry-picking, in this context. Take the ideas that prove useful and interesting, and only those ideas. Leave the less desirable ones behind. If one carries around only an anonymous sack of ideas, with no baggage associated with a 'school' or 'discipline', one can gradually widen and deepen ones understanding. But if one burdens ones self with labels like "instrumentalist", "scientific realist", or the like, one must also bear the burden of their less acceptable and useful ideas.

In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting phenomena. Instrumentalism is a pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey that thought is an instrument for solving practical problems, and that truth is not fixed but changes as problems change. Instrumentalism is the view that scientific theories are useful tools for predicting phenomena instead of true or approximately true descriptions.

I see several interesting ideas there.

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature, instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism, although its mere lack of commitment to scientific theory's realism can be termed nonrealism. Instrumentalism merely bypasses debate concerning whether, for example, a particle spoken about in particle physics is a discrete entity enjoying individual existence, or is an excitation mode of a region of a field, or is something else altogether. Instrumentalism holds that theoretical terms need only be useful to predict the phenomena, the observed outcomes.

But here, I see a dogmatic burden that instrumentalists seem required to carry too. A particular position wrt scientific realism, for a start. I can't be bothered with this nonsense! Once I declare myself to be a "scientific ethicist" - if that is even a thing - I must accept all of the ideas proffered under the umbrella of "scientific ethicism" - i.e. dogma - even if I don't really agree with them.

Dogma belongs with a social grouping, not a description of a philosophical standpoint, IMO. It is understandable when the RC church says to a prospective member "these are ideas which you must accept if you wish to become part of our social group; all of us who are members accept them". The RC church has a strong and fairly clear position in this regard. But a philosophical discipline, and its adherents, should not work in this way, I don't think. The freedom and flexibility of philosophical thought is compromised if we do.

[Marvin_Edwards]

When I was growing up, science was empirical. Empirical meant that it was based upon objective observation, rather than mere subjective opinions. Its facts were derived inductively, by observing reliable patterns of behavior in its objects of study. Scientific theories were tested by practical experiments that confirmed or denied their correspondence with empirical reality.

But I hadn't seen the word empirical used in a while by others in philosophical discussions. So I thought I'd look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And where did I find it?

Well there were several articles, but the one that caught my eye was called "Scientific Realism". That seemed like the logical place to find what I was looking for, because that sounded like the very essence of empiricism. Scientific realism would surely be what empiricism was all about.

But where did empiricism show up? Under the section heading "4. Antirealism: Foils for Scientific Realism", "4.1 Empiricism"!

So I went back to the top of the article to find out what the philosophical notion of "scientific realism" is. And the article starts out with this all too common caveat in the SEP:


Has philosophy lost its mind?

Why do you come to a philosophy forum to bash philosophy? Serious question. What is your point?

I didn't come to bash philosophy. I came to make it better. To me, the notion of empiricism as being in any way "antirealism" sets off an alarm in my head that something is terribly wrong. But, I'm still reading the article. My point was simply to inquire if anyone else was disturbed by the notion of empiricism being a category of antirealism.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Has philosophy lost its mind?

Why do you come to a philosophy forum to bash philosophy? Serious question. What is your point?

There is a group of people - an informal group, no uniforms, slogans or other formal organised stuff - who seem to believe that science is the only acceptable and effective tool for intellectual inquiry. These people are analytic philosophers, scientists and (sadly) sciencists too. Their position is that philosophy is an historical means of intellectual inquiry that has been superceded by science. They recognise no tool other than science as being acceptable, and some of them have started to challenge philosophy wherever they see it, trying to prevent its use, and turn any such use into the use of science instead. Philosophy is not their only target. They also recommend science as a substitute for religion, politics and moral/ethical studies.

I do not know if @Marvin_Edwards subscribes to this group of exclusive-scientists, but the OP suggests that perhaps he might. If so, it answers your question: "why come to a philosophy forum to bash philosophy?" The answer is: to get rid of philosophy, and replace it with science.

For myself, I cannot see why anyone would wish to eschew the use of any and all tools of intellectual inquiry. Where one tool proves less effective, another might be more useful. Where one tool cannot get a grip on a particular issue, another might. And so on. But the sciencists persist.

I'm not against philosophy so long as it creates more good than harm. Philosophy should be helping us to think more clearly about things. (I think A. J. Ayers said philosophy should help us to make meaningful statements). For example, it should equip us with the tools to solve paradoxes, and to avoid getting sucked into them.

[Pattern-chaser]

For example, it should equip us with the tools to solve paradoxes, and to avoid getting sucked into them.

Can you think of an example of a paradox that we are (or could be) sucked into? I can't think of any. Perhaps my imagination is lacking?

[Marvin_Edwards]

For example, it should equip us with the tools to solve paradoxes, and to avoid getting sucked into them.

Can you think of an example of a paradox that we are (or could be) sucked into? I can't think of any. Perhaps my imagination is lacking?

All the false implications of deterministic causal necessity. The notion that causation can cause events or that determinism can determine events (reification fallacy). The notion that the laws of nature have causal agency (metaphorical thinking). The notion that inevitability excludes possibilities and choices (figurative thinking).

The impossible "philosophical" definition of free will (freedom from causal necessity is an oxymoron).

And doesn't the phrase "scientific antirealism" strike you as at least a bit paradoxical?

[Actioninmind23]

The debate begins with modern science. Bellarmine advocated an antirealist interpretation of Copernicus’s heliocentrism—as a useful instrument that saved the phenomena—whereas Galileo advocated a realist interpretation—the planets really do orbit the sun. More generally, 17th century protagonists of the new sciences advocated a metaphysical picture: nature is not what it appears to our senses—it is a world of objects (Descartes’ matter-extension, Boyle’s corpuscles, Huygens’ atoms, and so forth) whose primary properties (Cartesian extension, or the sizes, shapes, and hardness of atoms and corpuscles, and/or forces of attraction or repulsion, and so forth) are causally responsible for the phenomena we observe. The task of science is “to strip reality of the appearances covering it like a veil, in order to see the bare reality itself” (Duhem 1991).

This metaphysical picture quickly led to empiricist scruples, voiced by Berkeley and Hume. If all knowledge must be traced to the senses, how can we have reason to believe scientific theories, given that reality lies behind the appearances (hidden by a veil of perception)? Indeed, if all content must be traced to the senses, how can we even understand such theories? The new science seems to postulate “hidden” causal powers without a legitimate epistemological or semantic grounding. A central problem for empiricists becomes that of drawing a line between objectionable metaphysics and legitimate science (portions of which seem to be as removed from experience as metaphysics seems to be). Kant attempted to circumvent this problem and find a philosophical home for Newtonian physics. He rejected both a veil of perception and the possibility of our representing the noumenal reality lying behind it.

I think there is a predominant judge of what science is trying to explain us with the empirism rather than using internal sources like logic to demonstrate issues, thoughts are important to describe things but not use the precision of the empirical activities. So Realism is based in the phenoma of what is perceived directly by our sight and that is what is consequently accepted by science.