Philosophers have the highest IQ

Honorable fellow list members, may I draw your attention to the fact that
symbolic logic and philosophy have not been that far away from each other,
especially since the times of logical positivism initiated by the Vienna Circle?
Here's a few names belonging to that tradition: Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
C.I. Lewis, Goodman, Kripke, Davidson, Prior, Vendler, Anscombe, Montague, Putnam,
David Lewis, Stalnaker, Kit Fine, Geach, Linsky, Dummett, von Wright, Hintikka,
van Frassen, Cresswell, Kaplan... (Of course by saying this I wouldn't like to take
sides in your debate about the measurement of philosophers' IQ in general. I'm just
making a point worth noting.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People can be phi- and math-men at the same time, but at the sequence of being a mathone first and developing into phi-one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yin yin i wonder if you even have the slightest understanding of any math or science

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maths is simpler then philosophy: maths is sequential (if this then that) while philosophy is non sequencial (is this comparable to that (what's the cathegory of this..)) Sequentially also an idiot (with a calculator) will find the way...while in philosophy an idiot will come nowhere. The reason we have calculator implys that mathematics is basically simple... Why we do not have philosoculator?

 

This statement demonstrates that you have either had very little experience in collegiate Mathematics, or you are purposefully over generalizing to further your point. Either way, you are incorrect for reasons discussed earlier.

A calculator will only solve the most simplistic problems in Mathematics, and by no means will an "idiot" with a calculator be successful in the field of Mathematics. The fact that calculators and software can solve some simple problems is due to the mechanical structure of some routine aspects of Mathematics, e.g. basic arithmetic, integrals with a real variable of integration, plotting of graphs, etc.

Frankly, the fact that there exists no such device for Philosophy is a testament to the disorder of the field, since nearly any system (not subject, system) with even the most complex set of rules can be modeled by current programming languages. Thus, the lack of such a device/program only supports my assertion that the study of Philosophy is essentially a waste of time, since without order, there can be no advancements, and a field that is incapable of such is not a field one should choose to study.

 

A caclulator called Deep Blue defeated the best human in chess. (But I egree with you that an idiot is still smarter than a computer)

It pleases me that you finally regognise that to understand philosophy means understanding of non-systematized infromation. This may be the new frontier for the field of mathematics (if it wants to rise above the computer).

 

totally irrelevant. you have shown you know nothing of math. a calculator can only be used to solve the most basic of math problems. mathematicians dont solve simple math problems they find new math. if that is easy to you, then you must be pretty smart and revolutionizing the field as we speak. good job!

have you heard of chaos theory? obviously not. once again, you know nothing about math.

also you have shown you dont understand the difference understand the difference between an algorithm and mathematics.

does being a philosopher require a certain level arrogance or just such a huge amount of insecurity.

furthermore, if you had the slightest understanding of math at all you would know the theorists rarely if ever come across numbers in their work

 

belittling math by stating all you need is calculator to do it is like saying to be a philosopher all you need is a pen and a piece of paper, but worse

 

I started math at primary school, not phi-

 

It is not my aim to belittle mathematics. I was just pointing out that domain of mathematics is a limited one. Mathematisc can be so far applied only to the countable part of the universe. There is its domain. When it comes to philosophy (and philosophical concepts) then mathematis can be used as an instrument to some philosophical consideration but not more than that.

Let's sum it up:

Mathematics is exact but incomplete
Philosophy is complete but unexact

thus both disciplines have pluses and mins.

 

Procop said:

Philosophy has axioms to the same degree as mathematics does... the difference is that we don't know as many of them. To claim that philosophy is complete, or that mathematics is exact, is a terrible misrepresentation.

 

yes, the exactness of maths is limited to domain d d<>0 and d < infinity and the completeness of philosophy is limited to the degree that in its domain everything can be placed (named) but not explained or understood.

 

Those are both assumptions of vast proportions.

 

Just a question, ProCop: where would you put formal (symbolic) logic: is it part of philosophy or math?

 

Symbolic logic is still an artificial language, even if it's a very complex one, and so relates more closely to mathematics. Philosophy is theoretically based in natural language (although I'm still not sure whether I believe that), and therefore somewhat different.

However, I'm still not sure I see why philosophy is limited to the domain of all things that can be named but not understood (I'd hate to defend that one), or why mathematics is restricted to a numerical set, no matter how large.

 

there is theoretical math that has no foundation in reality, at least not yet. again, one should be more versed in math before drawing such conclusions about it.

i dont see the significance of starting math in primary school? could the reason be that it is harder so you must start earlier or else be too far behind to gain any understanding as an adult.

 

Philosophy (language),(and maths - partialy) are used to monitor/describe the constalation of objects (universe). They are tools of description, not of understanding. They can do nothing else than name and compare (mental)objects. (If there was only one undividable object it would be unnamed and uncompared.) Understanding is a by-product of the description, it is non-linguistic and non-mathematical identification with an object in a flash of understanding the object). Poetry is the only tool which can (under favorable conditions) produce such flash. There is very littllle formal logic in poetry...

 

Your description of the operation of philosophy presumes too much about our understanding of the universe - some of the universe is made by philosophy (in a certain sense).

Do you know the thought experiment of Poincare's bugs?

 

Some call the flash of knowing spiritual experience. The brain remembers that moment, can sort of "recall it" but cannot analyze it in any way. The moment one tries to analyse it the recollection wades away. I think that doing philosophy or maths is the most efficient manner to avoid knowing the universe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do not know the bugs of Poincare, have you got a link?

 

Here ya go - <a href="http://mcs.open.ac.uk/tcl2/nonE/CABRI2001/PDiscMod.html">Poincare's Disc</a>

There are several pages (use the arrows at the bottom) which help to show the geometry of the disc.

This thought experiment helps to illustrate how, without higher knowledge of something like the fundamental geometry of your environment, you are forced to define parts of your experience by convention because there is no accessible fact of the matter. The bugs think that their universe is infinite, but we know (or our observations imply) that they live in a finite universe but become infinitely small as they approach the edge of it, such that they can never arrive.

Hence, your experience can be partly defined by convention. The truth is a slippery thing at best.

Also, learning by "the flash of knowing" sounds a lot like Platonic recollection to me - that is, you already know everything in the universe but you forgot it when you were born, and need to be reminded. (Like the slave boy in Plato's Meno, in case you're wondering where I'm getting this.)