New Forum for Philosophy of Science?

Here is the place for your suggestions, comments, or questions regarding the Philosophy Forums.

Do you want me to create a "Philosophy of Science" forum?

Poll ended at October 5th, 2009, 9:03 pm

Yes
4
67%
No
2
33%
 
Total votes: 6

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4198
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

New Forum for Philosophy of Science?

Post by Scott » September 21st, 2009, 9:03 pm

Please use this thread to vote on whether or not you want me to create a "Philosophy of Science" forum category.

The poll will be open for 2 weeks.

For more information or to ask questions about this proposal, please see the thread about it.

Thanks,
Scott
Last edited by Scott on November 6th, 2009, 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe » September 28th, 2009, 1:12 am

It would be fair to have a philosophy of science forum if there is a philosophy of religion forum.

More over it would allow things that people want to keep material, from turning in to metaphysics; which is what ends up happening as things presently are.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

lifegazer
Posts: 499
Joined: July 8th, 2009, 4:36 pm
Location: meaningless concept

Post by lifegazer » October 1st, 2009, 4:56 am

For what it's worth, I think that you're in danger of over-diluting the drink.
I think that epistemology & metaphysics fully-embraces any considerations of science, and that particular forum is hardly over-stretched.

Furthermore, I don't think it's right to compare a philosophy of religion with a philosophy of science, because revealed theology cannot be embraced within epistemology or metaphysics.

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe » October 2nd, 2009, 9:30 am

I can't disagree more lifegazer.

I mean if you look at the number of topics in E/M you will see it's the second highest, only to the general philosophy forum (yes, the race is fairly close for second).

More over you can apply metaphysics and epistemology to anything.

The drink can't be too diluted because it is made up of everything!

The philosophy of science section would be purely about physical science, and segregate from the discussion; possibilities. Only discussions involving physical evidence would be valid.

Science and religion have been at "war" since science's conception! Again it is only fair to have a science section if there is a religion section.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

lifegazer
Posts: 499
Joined: July 8th, 2009, 4:36 pm
Location: meaningless concept

Post by lifegazer » October 2nd, 2009, 12:19 pm

wanabe wrote:I can't disagree more lifegazer.

I mean if you look at the number of topics in E/M you will see it's the second highest, only to the general philosophy forum (yes, the race is fairly close for second).
I know that, but that's hardly a consideration because this forum is relatively quiet, on the whole. For instance, it's nearly 5pm where I am, and only 3 threads have produced posts today in the E/M forum. And it's like that most days, from what I can tell.
If there's going to be new forums created, there should really be a better reason, imo.
More over you can apply metaphysics and epistemology to anything.
I'm not sure about that. Would you care to discuss it, over at E & M? :P

Certainly, I don't think that politics is relevant to metaphysics. And what can be known about politics? The question hardly seems to make sense.
Likewise, there are areas of [revealed] religion that are beyond epistemology. Certainly, many issues pertaining to religion, such as whether Jesus existed, cannot be decided by philosophy at all. Certainly, whether God exists is a metaphysical issue. Whether the Xian God is that God, is a matter that cannot be discussed purely from the point-of-view of philosophy - especially if you are a Xian yourself. And what of 'art' (another contender for a forum of its own)? Certainly, E & M is not the place for it.
The philosophy of science section would be purely about physical science, and segregate from the discussion; possibilities. Only discussions involving physical evidence would be valid.
But that's not philosophy; it's just science. And although most people here have an interest in science, this forum as a whole specialises in philosophy. So, if we're going to have a science forum, why not a sports forum, or a stamp collector's forum?

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe » October 2nd, 2009, 3:49 pm

Bottom line, people are asking for it. There is a demand no mater how small to have two new forums crated. One for art and one for science.

More over it can't be that hard to make a new section, it's mostly copy and paste work.

The more ways/perspectives we present information the better. I would be in full support of any new forum(even if they are as trivial as stamps and sports. Knowledge can be gained form anything and the more different ways and angles the information has the deeper the understanding).

What can be known about politics/religion; everything any nothing... If we stop questing/thinking (critically), no matter what we are calling it, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Making a new forum is not spiting the red sea or turning water in to wine.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

lifegazer
Posts: 499
Joined: July 8th, 2009, 4:36 pm
Location: meaningless concept

Post by lifegazer » October 2nd, 2009, 4:51 pm

wanabe wrote:Bottom line, people are asking for it. There is a demand no mater how small to have two new forums crated. One for art and one for science.
No demands, especially small ones, should automatically be granted.
More over it can't be that hard to make a new section, it's mostly copy and paste work.
The effort required is not the issue.
The more ways/perspectives we present information the better. I would be in full support of any new forum(even if they are as trivial as stamps and sports. Knowledge can be gained form anything and the more different ways and angles the information has the deeper the understanding).
Let's have as many forums as we can think of, then. Thousands of them. Let's dilute M & E out of existence. Yes, let's have a philosophy board with a disused M & E forum.

If you owned Buckingham Palace and invited 50 people over for a party, would you open all of the rooms to them, or concentrate them into one room?
Making a new forum is not spiting the red sea or turning water in to wine.
What's at stake here, is the M & E forum. The heart and soul of philosophy. A philosophy forum with a poor M & E forum, is not an attractive philosophy forum, imo.

The 'traffic' doesn't warrant the change that has been requested. But the significant point here, is that the philosophy of science is the pivotal focus of epistemology. Even I, an idealist with a metaphysical agenda, spend half of my time discussing the limits of science. Why? Because so many people think that science defines the limits of what can be known.
If 'science' is segregated from all other M & E considerations, it will in some sense be at the expense of all other M & E considerations. It will, to some extent, exempt science from addressing those considerations. Especially if you get your way and ONLY 'physical facts' are allowed to be aired.

This may not sound that important to you, but to anyone that has a passion for metaphysics and epistemology, it's an abberation of philosophy.
That's why I've made the effort to post here.

Plus, I think it would be a backward-step for the forum as a whole, to make. I like it here, and wouldn't want to see that happen.

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe » October 4th, 2009, 3:50 pm

The demands aren't automatically granted if were having this discussion!

Effort required is always an issue, there is never just one issue!

Your fear mongering is ridiculous, were not going to eradicate E/M by having a science and art forum.

People are not just going to ask for pointless philosophy forums like stamps, there is no demand for it.

Its not like it cant be undone if things **some how take a turn for the worst.

I have lots of posts in the e/m section (I post more there than anywhere). I too have a passion for it, but its own limitations; as in we can't (debatable) know any thing; makes for convoluted discussions for some, and the practicality of science is not getting its proper address.

E/m is critical part of philosophy it can't be replaced or diluted, otherwise it would have been long ago. More over you cant dilute philosophy with more philosophy. And if we can: that poor general philosophy forum; we better stop diluting it with all these random off shoots like religion and interviews.

There will be no step if we don't make new forums and change things. Backwards or forwards steps; we still learn.

Again, its not like it can't be undone if things **some how take a turn for the worst.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Invictus_88
Posts: 597
Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
Contact:

Post by Invictus_88 » October 4th, 2009, 4:09 pm

I vote no. It can be covered in the context of epistemology, and cut off to stand alone I can't imagine there'd be a great deal to be said on the matter.

Invictus_88
Posts: 597
Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
Contact:

Post by Invictus_88 » October 4th, 2009, 4:10 pm

wanabe wrote:Science and religion have been at "war" since science's conception!
Same old cliché, no more true for being to often repeated.

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe » October 4th, 2009, 4:33 pm

Constructive as usual Invictus_88 :roll:. Thanks for the link in your signature.

If you think there cant be a lot of discussion with just science talk perhaps you should read some scientific journals/abstracts. Or my bumped post on evolution(this goes for every one).

I guess the votes, and scott (mostly) will decide.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Invictus_88
Posts: 597
Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
Contact:

Post by Invictus_88 » October 4th, 2009, 4:43 pm

Scientific journals bore me, though I get the New Scientist from time to time.

This doesn't make science philosophy though. The areas of science which can be discussed philosophically seem to be more limited than what you're suggesting, which would in effect be a "Science Subforum" of a philosophy website.

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe » October 4th, 2009, 4:57 pm

Why is it that people have such a narrow view of what philosophy is?

It's not fair for you to make any conclusions about how easily science can be discussed philosophically if you have never tried it. Nor bare to take an interest in scientific journals.

I don't like the politics section too much but i don't knock it.

To prove my point, ill replace science with religion....a religious sub forum of a philosophy web site...There isn't much to be said about religion, its all right there in a book, god said so, end of discussion.....right.....come on.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe » October 4th, 2009, 4:59 pm

I think a philosophy of business section would be good too scott... Though I probably wouldn't post there.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Invictus_88
Posts: 597
Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
Contact:

Post by Invictus_88 » October 4th, 2009, 5:02 pm

Scientific pronouncements, articles and research papers all have a certain fundamental epistemological standpoint, so there's not much philosophical variation until you start talking about ethical ramifications (Ethics, not Philosophy of Science) or Scientific Epistemology itself (bona fide Philosophy of Science, but quite narrow as an area for discussion).

Religious pronouncements, doctrines and denominations have different fundamental standpoints, so there's more fundamental variation, and the ethics of religion is different from the ethics of science because the ethic of the religion feeds back directly into our conception of God and so remains theologically relevant in a way that the ethics of science is not so scientifically relevant, and is usually discussed under Ethics.

Post Reply