Is there anything more to philosophy than semantics?

[Johnny Canuck3]

If science is going to explain philosophy to us, how will science explain the Philosophy of Science?

It will be like the worm ouroboros, trying to devour itself...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If science is going to explain philosophy to us, how will science explain the Philosophy of Science?

It will be like the worm ouroboros, trying to devour itself...

Science isn't going to explain philosophy to us. If you understood what you mean by the word philosophy more precisely, you'd see that.

But as I said earlier, philosophy is circular. And progress in philosophy is achieved by making the circularity simpler and eventually identifying it, at which point it disappears. Hence the description of philosophical enlightenment as 'well-informed ignorance'.

 

[Knotted]

Yes. For example, some people believe in free will, some believe in determinism. No amount of defining of terms will turn those two concepts into the same thing, and thus produce agreement.

They are only meaningful and distinct in so far as they are scientific claims rather than philosophical claims.

I think Laplacian determinism only makes sense because it is a metaphysical picture painted by the physics of the 19th century. It won't be proved wrong by supposed quantum indeterminacy because that conception relies on the same metaphysics. I recon it will be proved incoherent when we get our heads around the nature of time a bit better. But this is physics, not philosophy.

 

[Santino]

How people think they are using a word and how they are actually using it are often two different things. To root out examples of this is of course the proper realm of philosophy.

So, they think it means one thing, but it really means another? I call shenanigans.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How people think they are using a word and how they are actually using it are often two different things. To root out examples of this is of course the proper realm of philosophy.

I wouldn't presume to tell them how they're using the word. They have a book, that is the word of god, spoken through a prophet.

An actual god, not a concept of nonunderstanding. You might try to define their god away from them, but I don't think they'll be buying it. And since we'll never know for sure, it remains possible that your definition could be just as off base as theirs might be.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Science isn't going to explain philosophy to us. If you understood what you mean by the word philosophy more precisely, you'd see that.

But as I said earlier, philosophy is circular. And progress in philosophy is achieved by making the circularity simpler and eventually identifying it, at which point it disappears. Hence the description of philosophical enlightenment as 'well-informed ignorance'.

I have a pretty good understanding of what it means, which was why I was questioning what I thought you were putting forward.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I wouldn't presume to tell them how they're using the word.

I would. It is no more presumptuous than telling them that I think their religion is wrong, which I would also do.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But as I said earlier, philosophy is circular. '.

No it's not. For instance, the foundation for a lot of eastern philosophies, is a concept of unity: ie all things are part of a unified whole. That whole yin yang thing.

One of the philosophical foundations in the west, is the concept of duality, of the existence of opposites etc.

They are fundamentally different, and the difference isn't one of semantics.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I would. It is no more presumptuous than telling them that I think their religion is wrong, which I would also do.

Well, you can approach them with your certainty, and they'll meet it with their certainty.

It's that professed certainty about inherently uncertain things, that we keep fighting over.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

They are only meaningful and distinct in so far as they are scientific claims rather than philosophical claims.

I think Laplacian determinism only makes sense because it is a metaphysical picture painted by the physics of the 19th century. It won't be proved wrong by supposed quantum indeterminacy because that conception relies on the same metaphysics. I recon it will be proved incoherent when we get our heads around the nature of time a bit better. But this is physics, not philosophy.

But - it hasn't yet. So it's a bit premature to dismiss the philosophy of determinism.

 

[Wolveryeti]

can all philosophy ultimately be characterised as an attempt to provide precise definitions to words and phrases?

No. I think the point of Philosophy is to address questions that are hard to answer empirically. There seem to be a lot of contrarian twats who deny all possibility of knowledge and who love to bog down interesting debate with verbal hair splitting, but I think the subject has a lot more mileage if you start from a common ground of observations and assumptions that generally command assent, and see where you can get from there.

 

[Knotted]

But - it hasn't yet. So it's a bit premature to dismiss the philosophy of determinism.

It needs to be dissmissed before we can move past it.

I think the medievel debate between free will and determinism was quite distinct from the modern one. There is no question about free will and determinism there are several questions and non of them make sense in their own right, all are connected with a certain metaphysical picture and there is no reason for reality to conform to that picture.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, you can approach them with your certainty, and they'll meet it with their certainty.

It's that professed certainty about inherently uncertain things, that we keep fighting over.

I'm not going to dwell on this one because I've said it before on here, but I think it is possible to show that belief without evidence is essentially arbitrary, in which case any other belief without evidence that would be incompatible with that belief is equally likely to be true. If you can show that there potentially an infinite number of such beliefs, this also shows that there is a vanishingly small chance that their belief is correct. Whether or not this is identical to certainty that their belief is incorrect boils down to a discussion about the nature of infinity and limits which is not uncontroversial but is, practically speaking, unimportant.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

there is a vanishingly small chance that their belief is correct. Whether or not this is identical to certainty that their belief is incorrect boils down to a discussion about the nature of infinity and limits which is not uncontroversial but is, practically speaking, unimportant.

I think it boils down to a discussion about probability, not about infinity.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think it boils down to a discussion about probability, not about infinity.

Nope. Probability in the absence of evidence is meaningless.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm not going to dwell on this one because I've said it before on here, but I think it is possible to show that belief without evidence is essentially arbitrary,.

Prior to a certain date, no evidence had been adduced in Europe, that the world was round.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nope. Probability in the absence of evidence is meaningless.

there is a vanishingly small chance that their belief is correct.

But if you're right when you say that, then we're back to probabilities, aren't we?

 

[Dillinger4]

Prior to a certain date, no evidence had been adduced in Europe, that the world was round.

The flat world theory is a myth. The world had been considered round for a long time.

 

[Santino]

It is no more presumptuous than telling them that I think their religion is wrong, which I would also do.

I reckon it is actually more presumptious to tell someone that he doesn't really believe in the God he thinks he does than it is to tell him that the God he believes in has no factual basis.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Prior to a certain date, no evidence had been adduced in Europe, that the world was round.

People believed the world was flat based on the evidence that it looked flat. Others began to suspect differently because other evidence, such as horizons, suggested that it was round. Not the same.

 

[DotCommunist]

I secretely believe it's all a con to get sex and a job out of the rain etc etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The flat world theory is a myth. The world had been considered round for a long time.

It has for a long time now, but not so much before Galileo etc.

 

[Dillinger4]

It has for a long time now, but not so much before Galileo etc.

That is the myth, and it is just that. A myth.

The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BC in ancient Greek philosophy[1] and possibly ancient Indian philosophy.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

 

[Pip]

It has for a long time now, but not so much before Galileo etc.

The idea that everyone thought the world was round is a myth - most people thought it was egg shaped.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I reckon it is actually more presumptious to tell someone that he doesn't really believe in the God he thinks he does than it is to tell him that the God he believes in has no factual basis.

It is saying something more, certainly. It is saying not only that there is no factual basis in their god, but that they are mistaken in their belief.

The word 'presumptous' is wrong in this context.

 

[kyser_soze]

See, none of you would be able to do this if you needed to hunt to eat...

 

[Dillinger4]

I secretely believe it's all a con to get sex and a job out of the rain etc etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That is the myth, and it is just that. A myth.

L]

I wonder how a myth like that would get started?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But if you're right when you say that, then we're back to probabilities, aren't we?

OK, a proper understanding of what we mean by probabilities will show that any probability not based on evidence is vanishingly small. Whether or not 'vanishingly small' is identical to zero is a question that deals with the nature of infinity, not the nature of probability.

 

[kyser_soze]

I wonder how a myth like that would get started?

Politics, lost knowledge, simple ignorance. But the whole thing about flat earth medievalists is increasinly being shown up as absolute bollocks...