Poll: Philosophy: Important or a Waste of Time?

[Ledan]

The ancient greek stuff isn't important. If you are reading about the "philosophy of physics" you aren't really reading philosophy. Philosophy boils down to anwering life questions, by looking at assumptions, challenging them, and coming up with new and more logical answers. Philosophy lies in ethics, existentialism, politics, etc.
Science can never give us a code of ethic, philosophy does. Science can give us tools, some which can help us in philosophy, but it can't tell us why we shouldn't just curl up and dye, why we should strive for something better, and what meaning is. Abstract ideas, that are important, cannot be answered without philosophy. Social and cultural questions require a mix of history and philosophy.
Philosophy is everywhere, even if you can't see it. And it is important to learn philosphy, through school or through self pondering.

Edit:.... poster above me had a far more eloquent explanation than mine..... so, what he said.

 

[Tanakh]

I never said faith. I require none for this belief. It has been philosophers that have formed scientific thinking. Before there was even a word for "science", and long before the scientific method (which was formed by what again? Right, philosophy), anyone who you'd consider a scientist would consider themselves a philosopher. It wasn't until the 17th century when they began to be considered separate.

Why the xkcd game? To show that everything we know and love is based in philosophy. Let's play that game and I'll show you. Capital words will be the first link. Medicine is a SCIENCE. Okay, Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes KNOWLEDGE. Okay, then knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, that can include FACTS. Well facts can refer to TRUTHS which has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with REALITY. Which brings you right directly to philosophy.

Which brings me to your second and final points, that you think the seminal works medicine predate philosophical thought, and that my analogy is like saying you can't build Notre Dame without calculus, it certainly helps, but crap, its not required.

Okay, fine. Let's do some medicine, let's use the work you cite as well, the Edwin Smith Papyrus, with all it's lack of philosophy. Well, it goes over techniques to cover up a gaping wound. So in order to do that, you'd have to have an understanding that one thing causes another, that the bleeding stops when the bandage gets puts on directly because of the bandage. Hey, wait a second . . . that's PHILOSOPHY!

To get anywhere, you need philosophy. That isn't even the main point. The main point is that the OP said he's a hard sciency guy and doesn't thinks philosophy is stupid and unimportant. Since the scientific method was developed through philosophy, he owes his entire field and developed way of thinking to philosophy. If you'd like to disagree and say the scientific method is based in science, go ahead, but you're using circular reasoning in saying that science is valid because science proves science is valid through science.

Again, by paragraph.

- I said faith not with a bad connotation, though i must admit a small troll intent with the word; for AFAIK, there is a total impossibility to justify any beliefs with pure logic, you must start with Axioms (believing in them) and then build reasoning over them that is not purely logic, but rather discursive argumentation in order to convince yourself or others of something.
Also, about the method, are you seriously suggesting that the ones that came up with observing, measuring and testing stuff against real world experiences were the philosophers? They don't do it on their own field, so I find it unlikely. I do believe that they might be the ones that came up with the concept and the framework around it, probably by observing empiricist people doing experiments; i insist on the cathedral analogy, we needed Newton to understand better how it works and why it stands, to see how its mechanic works, but French certainly didn't had it when building Notre Dame.

- OMG, you can't be serious here, that at most shows that philosophy is a node in the wikipedia graph with lots of connections, and guess what? You are right in that (at least according to 2006 data) for philos has lots of links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_Referenced_Articles). By that reasoning wouldn't everything we love and know be rather based on math that has almost twice the links? or on USA that has almost 30 times the links?

-

So in order to do that, you'd have to have an understanding that one thing causes another, that the bleeding stops when the bandage gets puts on directly because of the bandage. Hey, wait a second . . . that's PHILOSOPHY!

Ok, I can see what is our problem, define me philosophy please so we can get on the same channel.

- Ohh, the OP? I think it was clear from his post he doesn't know philosophy OR hard science


Thanks and, well, i am a little trollish but this is an interesting conversation.

 

[Smurf McSmurfington]

Philosophy in general? One of our greatest accomplishments - being able to think, think about concepts, generate ideas, et cetera, not just thinking how to survive the present, like cavemen did. One of our greatest leaps forward, in terms of us using our brains.

That said, some philosophies are in the modern world, irrelevant, though I still think one should atleast partially familiarise themselves with any philosophies they are aware of. Just for the sake of expanding your horizons, if nothing else.

One would be a fool to discard philosophy as a whole. Still, thinking is not for everyone, and not everyone is able to think, apparently(though I wish that weren't true, sadly I see more and more proof of that most people are in fact incapable of conceptual thinking).

Ah well, yet another post by me, ranting on humans in general being dumb... this is becoming something of a habit, sorry.

 

[2fish]

After reading through this I wonder how many people think philosophy started with the Greeks since they seem to be the oldest ones listed.

On point OP you sound pissed at this topic or more likely your teacher. I am sorry crappy teachers suck.

I see all science as part of the same wheel, take one away it makes the wheel worthless.

 

[WayOutThere]

To those who voted for the last option, philosophy is more important than science. You do realize science wouldn't even exist without philosophy right? Or, for that matter, that democracy wouldn't either? Didn't think so. Beyond that, and just as damning, we use philosophy all the time in these very forums. Every time you get into a debate about any issue you are using philosophy! Philosophy is about the rational analysis and development of ideas. Anytime you say something like "COD sucks because it's sucking money away from more deserving titles!" you are using philosophy. In this case the philosophy is found in the moral judgment that people are doing something wrong by buying COD games*. It is not possible to have a rational discussion without philosophy**. If the case looks otherwise it's probably because philosophy of the matter is so deeply rooted in our understanding that we never think of it anymore (such as how scientists don't often think about the philosophical foundations of their discipline which leads to scientism- that is, the overvaluing of science and devaluing of philosophy). Thinking that philosophy is "a complete waste of time" is utterly inexcusable.

* Please note this is an example, one which I choose because it's such a prevalent topic of discussion in these forums. It is not by any necessity a reflection of my own opinion.

** this quote is relevant and too good to not throw in somewhere:

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language"

- Ludwig Wittgenstein

The main example is the (sadly common) idea that science is capable of explaining absolutely everything

Science has made advancement after advancement, continuously explaining things that use to be thought of as supernatural. From this enormous record an enormously compelling inductive conclusion can be reached that what is left unexplained is not supernatural in nature and has a scientific explanation whether that explanation is discovered or not. Note that this is a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one.

and if it cannot be explained by science it is not real

It is not necessarily a contradiction to be both a scientist and to believe in the supernatural due to the distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism- a distinction scientism would ignorantly deny. So yes, it remains possible that something outside the explanation of science exists though it seems extraordinarily unlikely given the above.

the idea that nothing truly exists outside of what science can directly perceive and explain. That's incredibly ignorant and narrow

While it remains possible that something that cannot be perceived or scientifically explained exists proposing something specific exists while forgoing the use of science leaves one without any standard by which to evaluate such a claim. It is therefore neither ignorant nor narrow minded to reject existence claims made without evidence.

studying philosophy for any real amount of time will point out exactly why

With some concern, what specific philosophical positions are you refering to?

----

Also worth reading on the matter is this blog post.

 

[Moromillas]

What you're reading is the history of philosophy. History is important, as is philosophy.

 

[The Stonker]

Philosophy is more important than science. Not by much, but by a little. It is the subject of self-examination and self-understanding. It is how we understand ourselves and others. While understanding the world around us is important, it is far more important that we learn to understand each-other.

yeah, it's hard to take a class in, but it's important.

Philosophy isn't something you learn in a class room, but rather by taking the walk of life.
But saying that it is more important then for instance physics then I must call you barking mad.

Philosophy is something you learn by thinking about things, not by living. Philosophy classes expose you to different ideas and can start or accelerate that process.

Philosophy helps us to understand each-other and ourselves, and that understanding is what helps us to not grind each-other into dust. It also helps elevate us, just barely, above our destructive, violent, selfish and violent instincts. Understanding is the very foundation of civilization, the cornerstone of humanity, and increasing that understanding is far more important than increasing our understanding of physics.

And of course living life and contemplating about it isn't as good as a philosophy class.
But concerning that most philosophy classes are crowded with hipsters then I will take my own path to enlightment thank you very much.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Again, by paragraph.

- I said faith not with a bad connotation, though i must admit a small troll intent with the word; for AFAIK, there is a total impossibility to justify any beliefs with pure logic, you must start with Axioms (believing in them) and then build reasoning over them that is not purely logic, but rather discursive argumentation in order to convince yourself or others of something.
Also, about the method, are you seriously suggesting that the ones that came up with observing, measuring and testing stuff against real world experiences were the philosophers? They don't do it on their own field, so I find it unlikely. I do believe that they might be the ones that came up with the concept and the framework around it, probably by observing empiricist people doing experiments; i insist on the cathedral analogy, we needed Newton to understand better how it works and why it stands, to see how its mechanic works, but French certainly didn't had it when building Notre Dame.

- OMG, you can't be serious here, that at most shows that philosophy is a node in the wikipedia graph with lots of connections, and guess what? You are right in that (at least according to 2006 data) for philos has lots of links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_Referenced_Articles). By that reasoning wouldn't everything we love and know be rather based on math that has almost twice the links? or on USA that has almost 30 times the links?

-

So in order to do that, you'd have to have an understanding that one thing causes another, that the bleeding stops when the bandage gets puts on directly because of the bandage. Hey, wait a second . . . that's PHILOSOPHY!

Ok, I can see what is our problem, define me philosophy please so we can get on the same channel.

- Ohh, the OP? I think it was clear from his post he doesn't know philosophy OR hard science


Thanks and, well, i am a little trollish but this is an interesting conversation.

Some beliefs can be deduced by pure logic. Or at least one, the belief that the self exists (Descartes). I can deduce that I exist, though I can't be sure in exactly what form I do. I'm working on developing a working theory that would allow us to generate more beliefs out of that singular belief, but it's on the back burner at the moment.

As for the development of the scientific method, yes, much of it is derived from philosophers. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Classical_model"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Classical_model[/a]
The point is, remove philosophy from history and you really don't have modern science. Even if there was a pure scientist who developed science, he was influenced by philosophical thinkers that came before him. Most of our advanced knowledge and thinking techniques are derived from philosophers.

Your Cathedral analogy fails because, if the analogy was true to the real world, the tools French used would have been developed by Newton. The tools scientists use were developed through philosophy. I mean the concept and framework is quite an important thing towards the development of the whole, wouldn't you say? On top of that, the original empiricists WERE philosophers, one of the earlier ones being Aristotle. Empiricism itself is a philosophy, so to say they got their ideas from early Empiricists, you're saying they got their ideas from early philosophers.

As for the wikipedia links, I never alluded to the NUMBER of links or connections being important. It's about establishing what things are based in. You use the first link outside of parenthesis because it generally denotes that. I will now press "random page" on wikipedia to demonstrate this.

Okay I got this [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Federal_District"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Federal_District[/a]

Well what is the Siberian Federal District? Well, simply put, it's a Federal District, as the first link implies. Ten first links and you again get to philosophy. You don't get to the US. I WILL admit that a lot of things are based in mathematics as well, and rightfully so. If the rabbit hole doesn't end in philosophy, chances are its because it ends in mathematics. Back to the original link though, what the Siberian Federal District is is dependent upon what a general Federal District is, which is dependent on Russia, which is a country . . . and so on. This exercise is to show that pretty much everything is based in philosophy, but most importantly, science is based in philosophy. Science IS a philosophy. You don't need to be good at philosophy in general to do it, just like Einstein didn't need to be good at basic mathematics in order to understand the advanced stuff. However to cite that and say therefore the advanced maths doesn't require the basic set of mathematics to exist is ludicrous.

And if you want a definition to philosophy, I'm fine with the wikipedia one: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

Without philosophy, we would be animals. All of the current laws within our rigid scientific system were developed using philosophy. In a sense, science cannot exist without philosophy. So obviously it's important.

I should probably clarify because philosophy can be put under a very, very large umbrella of things. I'm referring to philosophy as in the academic subject as it is currently studied and taught. Sure, you can attribute every decision and thought as a form of philosophy, but that's just arguing semantics (and it seems philosophy deals with semantics a bit too often). I could argue that humans make calculations in their heads all the time, but it doesn't make a College Algebra course any more worthwhile than it already is.

What does a high paying job and a useful diploma/degree get you when you're rotting in the ground?