and?Philosophy is the pursuit of any maybe. Maybes can be expored with logic, but they are still maybes?
You think factual debate in science doesn't bring a few "maybes" to the table?
and?Philosophy is the pursuit of any maybe. Maybes can be expored with logic, but they are still maybes?
I propose -not 100% decided on- that when people mix religious ideas with logic, science, factual debate they fudge up the whole experience for everyone else.
are they key figures in the various branches of philosophy?
![]()
Key figures in various branches of philosophy?First of all, cite your source.
Big difference between a philosopher and a philosophy lecturerSecond of all, it was 900 philosophers across 99 leading universities. I'd imagine that there would certainly be some "key" figures among them depending on your definition. But I don't have a list of names. Third of all, they are all alive now (or at least were when they took the survey which wasn't too long ago).
What does it matter whether they are dead or not?I hope your own merry band of philosophers aren't all long dead. Scientific understanding has come along way over the centuries and usually has a very significant impact on philosophy.
You've never encountered a revision of explanations of the universe, matter or life (in fact just about anything they lay claim to) within the historiography of science?The "may-be's", when brought to the table, such as claims of cold fusion, are then thrown out of the window if the experiments are not repeatable, whereas, God is painted on a stained glass window then too expensive to be thrown out.
and?
You think factual debate in science doesn't bring a few "maybes" to the table?
The "may-be's", when brought to the table, such as claims of cold fusion, are then thrown out of the window if the experiments are not repeatable, whereas, God is painted on a stained glass window then too expensive to be thrown out.
Because not, anyone has ever shown a god/gods to exist, it is called a faith for a reason.How do you know that this - "religion is a set of "beliefs" reliant on maybes" - is a fact?
How do you know that religion is built on nothing but maybes?
Of course it does, but it will end on a fact. Whereas philosophy can only end on a maybe. Huge difference.and?
You think factual debate in science doesn't bring a few "maybes" to the table?
What does it matter whether they are dead or not?
The statistics you cite have nothing to do with key figures in the various branches of philosophy anymore than science teachers in a university constitute key figures in the various branches of science.Like I said, science has come a long way over the centuries and philosophers have always been influenced to a very significant degree by the level of scientific knowledge that was available to them when they were formulating their thoughts on particular issues. If those philosophers were a live today they would almost certainly think differently on a whole range of topics.
I am simply challenging the validity of your statistics insofar as you use them to support what you are saying, even if what you are saying does indeed have some merit all by itself.
:bugeye:Of course it does, but it will end on a fact. Whereas philosophy can only end on a maybe. Huge difference.
So you are trying to suggest that mainstream science isn't subject to revision?Of course but it is a parallel between fringe science and philosophy. Philosophy entertains things like questioning of whether I exist etc. things that question mainstream Science's agreed upon conclusions. Whether this is wrongly or rightly is individual choice.
But please note I said ANY maybe. What I would call mainstream science usually prefers to deal with a process of putting the next brick on the existing wall, or at least a brick that can be foreseen to be able to be placed within the wall, a wall that it has been preagreed to exist.
Philosophy, advanced Mathematics, and Multiverse theories delve deeply in untestable (at present) areas. And I most definitely don't knock that. In fact I have my own Multiverse "theory" (could never say belief) that may allow the existence of god/creator within the parameters of existing scientific thought.
I suppose we humans just love to wrangle incessantly over terminology and categorisation, questioning each others barebones interpretations. I do find it extremely seductive to try and move into a mode of thought that allows myself to not be final on any of it. But I am not sure even that is possible.
i don't mind that part..it challenges me..If you don't want religious beliefs questioned by those of scientific bent
um, been there done that, didn't work..it was like an invitation for all the God bashers..thread didn't last long..If you want a specific thread to not dispute a specific assumption (e.g. "God exists") then the OP should state this clearly...
i like deviation as long as it has wisdom in it..But bear in mind that the longer a thread goes on, the further it will deviate from the OP.
hmm really?I'm sure you didn't mean it, but this comes across as highly arrogant.not impose..teach
the short version is ' all i can do is share what i know, it up to the other person to decide what to do with it.Again - comes across as yet more arrogance.all i can ever do is share what i believe, its up to the other person to get any wisdom from it..(IOW I can't make you)...
as what i am saying is what i believe is truth,as though what you're saying is to be taken as truth,
it is..how are you not aware of how you make your decisions? (think,feel,know,believe?)and that it is up to the listener / reader to accept it or not.
um..thats my bitch about that particular subject matter (GvNG)Positions such as these rarely make for constructive dialogue, regardless of forum.
The statistics you cite have nothing to do with key figures in the various branches of philosophy
anymore than science teachers in a university constitute key figures in the various branches of science.
Ironically if you are trying to suggest that scientific advancement is capable of shifting the views of these various key figures in philosophy, you have quite a bit of philosophical work ahead of you ....
So you are trying to suggest that mainstream science isn't subject to revision?
Yet even if one enrolls under the tutelage of any of the said 900 persons, one will be studying the philosophical approaches of key figures within the language of logical debate, so the OP is moot.Yet every one of the just over 900 professional philosophers surveyed would have had significant exposure to the philosophy of the key figures you speak of.
The big funding bodies in science grants generally draw from two crowds - the pharmaceutical industry (ie patents) and the military - philosophy won't really help these two industries in their pursuits, but its certainly effective in critiquing their pursuits.Philosophy is quite a bit different from science. It is comparatively easy for a scientist (or group of scientists) to obtain funding for a research project because science has all sorts of practical applications. But for the vast majority of philosophers teaching is the only option available to them. Some of them are lucky enough to work at research institutes or for think tanks but such opportunities are very rare.
The problem is that you just used the word "supernatural" in an attempt to minimalize the position of philosophy that is discordant with your values ... which, btw, is a philosophical problemThe problem you're describing isn't a philosophical one, it's a supernatural one.
Perhaps if you didn't have access to a library with their writingsI'd have to figure out a way to raise them all from the dead.
If they are yet to make a distinguishable contribution to society, why place them in the same category as those persons who already have (regardless whether they are a scientist or a philosopher)?Seriously though, most work in philosophy today, even by the philosophers who are lucky enough to have positions where they can spend a significant amount of time doing what philosophers are supposed to be doing (advancing certain schools of knowledge), is an extension of the work done by all the philosophers who have come before them. Why? Because all of the various branches of philosophy were all established long ago and all of the low hanging fruit has already been picked. You shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that we don't have philosophers in the world today who are just as intelligent and insightful as the greats throughout history, just like you shouldn't assume that we don't have scientists alive today who are as intelligent and insightful as Einstein or Newton. We clearly do.
You don't think evidence that observation affects results is revolutionary?There is a core knowledge in science that is less likely to waver even with an alteration of the laws of physics.
and lo and behold, religion also has its share of terms, practices and conclusions that lend comprehension tot he discipline (or alternatively, bewilderment in their absence)Of course science is changeable. The question really is where do you draw the line between this "core" science and fringe science. highly open to debate I would think?
The nature of science's process is that it is always capable of change given evidence that overwhelms or ties into better previous evidence.
Things can be looked at from many viewpoints, words are infinitely flexible in their application. But science tries to tend to agree on the meaning for a scientific term. The dictionary gives us multiple meanings and possibilities for one word.
A brick wall isn't impossible to move, rebuild. I wouldn't read too much into the analogy. . .
You don't think evidence that observation affects results is revolutionary?
I think we do not know enough about some mechanisms yet, and that interpretations of evidence can themselves sometimes be in need of upgrade in their levels of scientific development to truly understand evidence. This is alleviated as more evidence is accrued from the edge, and new ways of scrutinizing are established.
and lo and behold, religion also has its share of terms, practices and conclusions that lend comprehension tot he discipline (or alternatively, bewilderment in their absence)