Delusions of Grandeur and Conspiracy theorists: Connection?

[wellwisher]

Religion teaches us about absolutes, based on the concept of God; all knowing. Whether one attributes, nature to God, or not, science assumes this foundation; there is an answer, and therefore there are absolutes in nature; follow the laws of science.

Philosophy is the bridge between these two sources of dogma, and tries to reason things through, to make sure the claims of absolutes in both science and religion, are not just dogma, using mass religious appeal to define their absolutes. This shows up as the claim as being beyond question, with any criticism being blaspheme; common in science forums.

Absolutes are not houses of cards that have to be sheltered from any breeze. They are sturdy and can weather any storm or debate. Philosophy tries to look at the conceptual foundation and framework, to make sure these follow logic building codes and to make sure the house is not built on swamp land or floating in the air.

One can build a mansion on swamp land. Everyone can then marvel at the mansion, never knowing it is about to sink. Philosophy is like a building inspector making sure certain building codes are used to make a secure house. Sometimes you can't add another floor to the house, without major foundation changes. The philosophy will inspect for this before issuing a building permit. But like in city building you can buy permits and inspectors to grandfather in old buildings.

 

[Yazata]

When you write about philosophy Paddoboy, you remind me of the pseudo-scientists who periodically charge onto Sciforums, announcing that Einstein or evolutionary biology are bullshit, without having any formal instruction in or knowledge of either subject.

I see it this way. Philosophy is the musings of general ideas about the why, how, when and what of the mind boggling awesome Universe we inhabit.

I guess that in a vague sense that's true. Philosophy (in the English-speaking world at least) is the investigation of the most basic concepts and principles of whatever subject is being examined.

Science is the gathering of knowledge, conducting experiments, making observations, to arrive at the best model that describes our observations and the experimental results.

And there you go, throwing out philosophical ideas and doing philosophy without even being aware that you are doing it.

What is knowledge? What kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge? What is it knowledge of?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/

What do experiments have to do with acquiring knowledge?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/conf-ind/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/

What are observations?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evidence/

What are models and what does it mean to be 'the best model'?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/models/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/

Some other philosophical issues of interest with regards to science:

The problem of defining and demarcating 'pseudoscience'.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

Albert Einstein on the philosophy of science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

Sure I do. Perhaps its more a case of you misunderstanding.
Let me state it again at the risk of drawing the ire of our Philosophy brigade.
Philosophy is what we don't know.

No, no, no. Philosophy is the intellectual framework with which we make sense of and justify whatever it is that we are doing.

If you really believed that philosophy is what we don't know, then wouldn't you remain silent? Instead you insist on writing about about things like "the Scientific Method" and its value and importance, that by your own admission, you know nothing about.

 

[origin]

Philosophy is the bridge between these two sources of dogma, and tries to reason things through, to make sure the claims of absolutes in both science and religion, are not just dogma, using mass religious appeal to define their absolutes.

You apparently do not know what dogma or science means - maybe both.

Dogma -a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted .

Science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

If you really believed that philosophy is what we don't know, then wouldn't you remain silent? Instead you insist on writing about about things like "the Scientific Method" and its value and importance, that by your own admission, you know nothing about.

Grok'd!

 

[Yazata]

If we are going to have dueling quotes from authoritative figures about the value of philosophy, here's three from Albert Einstein. The last one in particular is far more than a mere slogan, it's a thoughtful response to the upheaval in physics associated with the appearance of relativity and quantum theory.

"This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

" When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgement and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm they had a vigorous interest in epistemology."

"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them, but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a new and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations, for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified and are necessities."

Sources for the quotes are given here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

 

[paddoboy]

"This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

Your opinion and couple of rants are just that.
In the meantime here's another quote.........
"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".
Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciquote.htm

 

[paddoboy]

You apparently do not know what dogma or science means - maybe both.

Dogma -a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted .

Science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Nicely put origin. Obviously, my original mention of philosophy was directed at wellwisher.

 

[paddoboy]

No, no, no. Philosophy is the intellectual framework with which we make sense of and justify whatever it is that we are doing.

I see philosophy as I previously stated..."the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline".
I see science as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".
Both WIKI definitions.

If you really believed that philosophy is what we don't know, then wouldn't you remain silent? Instead you insist on writing about about things like "the Scientific Method" and its value and importance, that by your own admission, you know nothing about.

You are confusing philosophy with the "scientific method" and I'm rather puzzled how you can deduce that since I believe that philosophy is what we don't know, can logically conflict with what I do know as the scientific method and the steps on which that is comprised.
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring newknowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2]To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[Schmelzer]

You are confusing philosophy with the "scientific method" and I'm rather puzzled how you can deduce that since I believe that philosophy is what we don't know, can logically conflict with what I do know as the scientific method and the steps on which that is comprised.

You have already openly stated that you have not read, and are unwilling to read, the standard sources for the modern understanding of the scientific method, as accepted by the mainstream of physics, namely Karl Popper's books about the scientific method.

So, it is quite obvious that you don't know much about the scientific method. Your knowledge is, judging from your quotes, on the level of a Wikipedia reading.[/QUOTE]

 

[paddoboy]

You have already openly stated that you have not read, and are unwilling to read, the standard sources for the modern understanding of the scientific method, as accepted by the mainstream of physics, namely Karl Popper's books about the scientific method.

No, you are telling porky pies.
I'm not interested in reading Popper's understanding certainly, but just as certainly, I find the "scientific method" simply an implementation of logic and common sense, that also flows over into everyday life.

So, it is quite obvious that you don't know much about the scientific method. Your knowledge is, judging from your quotes, on the level of a Wikipedia reading.

I certainly know more about the scientific method, than any self confessed anti establishment rebel, fabricating conspiracies to add credibility to personal beliefs.

 

[paddoboy]

1. stuff up

 

[dumbest man on earth]

If we are going to have dueling quotes from authoritative figures about the value of philosophy, here's three from Albert Einstein. The last one in particular is far more than a mere slogan, it's a thoughtful response to the upheaval in physics associated with the appearance of relativity and quantum theory.

"This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

" When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgement and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm they had a vigorous interest in epistemology."

"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them, but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a new and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations, for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified and are necessities."

Sources for the quotes are given here :
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

As you have no doubt surmised, Yazata, Albert Einstein's "opinion" or "rants" are as nothing when compared to the exhalted Wikipedia...

 

[Magical Realist]

Your opinion and couple of rants are just that.
In the meantime here's another quote.........
"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".
Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciquote.htm

" Astronomers and physicists, dealing habitually with objects and quantities far beyond the reach of the senses, even with the aid of the most powerful aids that ingenuity has been able to devise, tend almost inevitably to fall into the ways of thinking of men dealing with objects and quantities that do not exist at all, e.g., theologians and metaphysicians. Thus their speculations tend almost inevitably to depart from the field of true science, which is that of precise observation, and to become mere soaring in the empyrean. The process works backward, too. That is to say, their reports of what they pretend actually to see are often very unreliable. It is thus no wonder that, of all men of science, they are the most given to flirting with theology. Nor is it remarkable that, in the popular belief, most astronomers end by losing their minds."===H. L. Mencken

 

[paddoboy]

As you have no doubt surmised, Yazata, Albert Einstein's "opinion" or "rants" are as nothing when compared to the exhalted Wikipedia...

Albert Einstein's contribution to both science and philosophy are well know, and as such I more than anyone respect and consider his views.
He was also a humble man though, a quality many here could emulate and by doing so, become far better contributors to science.
His thoughts on purely philosophical issues were just that, and his evidenced based views on science were also well known and accepted.
Philosophy also encompasses religion/s and the associated beliefs, which are not scientific considerations.
Religion is beliefs due to ignorance:
Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence including religious views and ponders, and ponders, and ponders.
Science strives to model what we observe of the structure and nature of those observations and supply answers.
Science gives us answers, and continues to strive for more answers.
I'm sure Albert would grimace at the contributions of some here, particularly wellwisher and yourself, and the apparent confusion between the philosophical reasoning and thought processes, and the factual practical and theoretical nature of science, without any connection or regards to religion.

 

[paddoboy]

" Astronomers and physicists, dealing habitually with objects and quantities far beyond the reach of the senses, even with the aid of the most powerful aids that ingenuity has been able to devise, tend almost inevitably to fall into the ways of thinking of men dealing with objects and quantities that do not exist at all, e.g., theologians and metaphysicians. Thus their speculations tend almost inevitably to depart from the field of true science, which is that of precise observation, and to become mere soaring in the empyrean. The process works backward, too. That is to say, their reports of what they pretend actually to see are often very unreliable. It is thus no wonder that, of all men of science, they are the most given to flirting with theology. Nor is it remarkable that, in the popular belief, most astronomers end by losing their minds."===H. L. Mencken

Menken may have had proper insight as to philosophers and philosophy, but he actually had no knowledge of cosmology/astronomy.
Every man has his limitations.
Not sure though what is knowledge and beliefs on ghosts, goblins, UFOs, and Poltergeists were.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

...

 

[paddoboy]

Many scientists of late have talked and metioned less then favourably, the art of philosophy...Stephen Hawking and Neil De-Grasse Tyson just to name two.
Neither totally outrightly dismiss it...De-Grasse Tyson for example when interviewed on philosophy and its usefulness, exclaimed, "Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning"?
Hawking said "Philosophy is dead, and that Philosophers have not kept up with science"
My Opinion, I don't believe either are or have totally written off the usefulness of philosophy, just that once certain stages are reached in science, some of the more philosophical questions are just not worth considering.
Hawking criticised philosophers for playing trivial word games. [reminds me of some here] instead of trying to improve our present cosmological models.
In essence the path of the relentless advancement of science are strewn with the bodies of philosophers.
Which brings us back to the subject of this thread...That is the connection between our conspiracy adherent friends and the obvious delusions of grandeur, and the mental disability that it just as obviously entails and as detailed in earlier posts.

 

[Daecon]

Science is pencils, rulers and graph paper.

Philosophy is crayons and coloured cardboard.

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?

 

[Daecon]

I believe some branches of philosophy are still relevant today, for example, subjects such as ethics aren't part of science but they do allow us to realise the best way to apply scientific discovery for the benefit of all life, Human, animal, and miscellaneous.

And without philosophy, we may not even have developed the foundations on which the scientific method is built, such as logic.

Philosophy isn't for unlocking the secrets of the Universe, but it can help point us in the direction of the door.