Galling can go both ways. Why is it that philosophists have gone hundreds or thousands of years thinking on a problem and produced no tangible results and yet Science put a man on the moon? Reproducibility.
More to the point, most of what you hold dear is precisely philosophical in nature. Let us list but two, which I draw directly from your comment:
1. The value of putting a man on the moon
2. The superior (epistemological!) quality of scientific knowledge.
That last one bears repeating. The entire reason you think that you think science is better than philosophy is because of a philosophical stance. You are manifestly an empiricist, albeit one who does not understand empiricism and its rational context very well.
Respectfully, I leave you with the following quote by Gordan Fee:
Before you can say, ‘I disagree,’ you must be able to say, ‘I understand.’
It is axiomatic that before you level criticism you should be able to state
an author’s position in terms that he or she would find acceptable.
And your entire reply rests on misreading of my comment; note that I said "a problem" not "all problems". There are many problems that philosophists have made absolutely no progress on in centuries or millenia because on those narrow questions the dialog is horribly imprecise and does not give rise to reproducible, testable things.
Almost everyone who replied to me assumed that I meant all of philosophy is useless from basically missing the "a" word in my comment.
Nevertheless, it makes your comparison with "putting a man on the moon" very puzzling. Why not compare this great achievement of science with a great achievement of philosophy?
Moreover, you place science and philosophy in opposition with each other, yet science is exactly a subset of philosophy. And while you might point to the higher epistemological quality of empiricism (as opposed to, say, metaphysics), you would have to concede that science is also tackling easier questions by a significant margin, precisely because they can be apprehended through epistemologically-objective observation.
Given the above, the charitable interpretation remains ignorance. One might even qualify it as "galling".
Also there is a larger conversation to be had, because we're really talking about Western philosophy in context. Buddhist philosophy has all kinds of things to say about what the mind is and isn't, but we don't carry that in our traditions because a lot of Buddhism completely nullifies our Western consumerism culture, and that's uncomfortable. So...
We could start with Aristotelian logic, and the idea that falsehood can lead to truth, but not vice versa. A formal definition of "true" and "false", and their semantic properties is the basis of literally all formal thinking. It should be noted propositional logic was incorporated into mathematics much later, and that this idea is inescapable in all intellectual pursuits. You can invalidate political, metaphysical, scientific and mathematical assertions on the basis of logic.
We might also point to platonic forms, which provide the basis for all engineering and scientific modeling. It is the very concept that you are appealing to every time you add an error term to a model. Until we started seeing the world in these terms, we couldn't even express the engineering requirements and scientific questions needed to get to the moon. What do you mean by "the Saturn V fuselage is a circle of X centimeters in diameter, give or take Ɛ ... ?"
If you prefer something more modern, we could point to Gilbert Ryle's demonstration that Cartesian dualism is founded on fallacious reasoning. The guy rigorously demonstrated why mind-body separation was a logical contradiction, thereby showing that science could meaningfully study the mind. On that basis, we are now able to communicate with locked-in patients using brain imaging that recognizes the neural signature of consciousness.
Have you ever wondered what your political values are based upon? It's all but certain that you were educated and shaped by culture and institutions that explicitly espouse the ideas of John Stuart Mill.
I do see the trap you're laying, however. You're going to either (a) claim that one doesn't really need the first three ideas to pursue science effectively or (b) claim that ideas such as Mill's are epistemologically subjective and therefore of lesser value than going to the moon.
For (a), the onus would be on you to show how logical reasoning, the specification of systems (surveying, architecture, mechanics, etc.) can be expressed absent form (and you will note that human inventions absent the notion of form were not the product of specification).
For (b), you will have to concede that epistemologically-subjective problems are much more challenging than their objective counterparts, and that science is -- in this respect -- playing in easy mode. It's easy to spot errors and come to a consensus when the bridge falls over. It's harder to spot glaring problems in e.g. a political theory. More importantly, perhaps, you'll have to appeal to philosophy to convince us of the inferiority of such ideas. Along the way, you will appeal to a number of great ideas, including Aristotelian logic (ideally).
If you want to claim that empiricism should trump all other modes of knowledge when it is applicable, and that empiricism is therefore better than the other modes of knowledge ... nice try! How, pray, might we determine when empiricism is applicable? How can empiricism be more important or "better" (whatever that means) than the very things it depends upon?
>Also there is a larger conversation to be had, because we're really talking about Western philosophy in context.
Indeed we are, but I hardly see the relevance. We are talking about Wester philosophy because the two are very different beasts. What we refer to as "(mostly) Western philosophy" is unique in its emphasis on the analytical method, and on uninterrupted chains of propositional logic. There is no equivalent movement in the East. The phrase "Eastern philosophy" uses the word "philosophy" in a very different sense. These thinkers are absolute treasures as well, but their methods are different: the emphasis is on holistic meaning, and (arguably, since there is an equivalent tradition in the West, in many ways) something we could label as "spirituality". If you want an easy/popular example (albeit only loosely related to philosophy), try comparing how Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz think about war. The method is very distinct.
>Buddhist philosophy has all kinds of things to say about what the mind is and isn't, but we don't carry that in our traditions because a lot of Buddhism completely nullifies our Western consumerism culture, and that's uncomfortable. So...
So... what? It's an interesting question, but it has nothing to do with the value of Western philosophy itself. The irony is that the very thing you decry -- consumerism -- has its roots in liberalism, ergo in Jon Stuart Mill!
Are you referring to the (deep!) spiritual wisdom in Buddhism? Western philosophy is perfectly equipped to discuss these questions as well! There is nothing uncomfortable, here! Have you read even one medieval philosopher? Start with Thomas Aquinas! You seem like a logical positivist, so perhaps you would enjoy an attempt at a formal, axiomatic proof of metaphysical phenomena? If so, you should read Liebniez's Monadology -- it's not easy reading, but it's great!
In the same way that Sun Tzu and Clauewitz differ in their methodology, so to do Acquinas and Liebniez differ from the Buddha. Yet there is overlap in their conclusions, and unique insights on their side as well!
It seems like you're falling into the trap of exoticism. If you spent even a fraction of the time you (apparently) dedicate to informing yourself on Eastern philosophy reading great Western philosophers, you would discover a treasure-trove that is on par with what the East has produced, and wonderfully original and unique.
>You're right, I probably don't know enough philosophy (but then again, who does...).
I don't even know where to begin with this one. Many people know a great deal about philosophy, just as many people know a great deal about science. We call the former "philosophers" and the latter "scientists".
P.S.: I'm not even a goddamn philosopher. I'm a scientist.
I do think people's critiques of philosophy stem from a need to be pragmatic, which ironically is itself a philosophy. It's difficult to reconcile the lagged "observable usefulness" of philosophy with its actual usefulness.
That which is useful is generally ignored as its been so ingrained in the psyche and that which is seen to not be useful is usually controversial and hasn't made itself to be the "norm" as of yet.
Thank you! I must admit I find the disparagement of philosophy tiring and irritating, especially when it comes from people (self-proclaimed empiricists) who really ought to know better. I am happy to hear my frustration has not gotten in the way of an interesting discussion :)
>It's difficult to reconcile the lagged "observable usefulness" of philosophy with its actual usefulness.
I don't think there is a lag in usefulness (observed or otherwise), when one knows what philosophy is, and appreciates the deep dependencies between it and its sub-disciplines.
Rather, I think people confuse usefulness with certainty. By that logic, I could discount the whole field of science on the basis of the inferential leap. Although science is an iterative process, we cannot be certain that it must converge on truth (though I think it probably does). Given that, the mathematician could look down his nose at science and say "Ha! These fools can't even prove anything!", and in so doing be just as much of a fool as the scientist dismissing the philosopher.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I understand you are not such a person!)
One thing I liked about the author was the acknowledgment that Freud made mistakes, but shouldn't be 100% dismissed either. I like relating this to modern atom theory. How vital is the understanding of electrons to atoms these days? It's borderline impossible to imagine how atoms work without knowing anything about electrons.
Dalton developed modern atom theory in 1804. Electrons weren't discovered until the 1890s. 90 years of people probably saying, "it's impossible to get tangible results from testing atoms". Freud's theories are almost 100 years old now. We've come a long way... but how more advanced is atomic theory an extra 100 years after electrons were discovered? We are still stupid when it comes to psychology, thus unable to really make tangible results... yet. The faster that concept is respected, I truly think the faster advancements can be made because people won't get hung up on bad pop science declarations from innocent studies that are doing to their best to just discover some grain of truth.
Again, he wasn't perfect by any stretch, but his work and push of psychoanalysis is the seed to our current forms of therapy. Yes, modern therapy still isnt perfect for war and trauma induced PTSD but holy shit it's better than cranking up the voltmeter on someone, pumping them full of cocaine and tobacco and snakeoil, or just locking them up in a padded room. This doesn't include some of the archaic religious torture practices some places of the world still utilize to this day.
The dude was on the right track compared to the rest of his time. Give credit where credit is due. It's not like you invented the transistor. We all stand on someone else's shoulders. Hindsight is a whole hell of a lot easier than foresight.
Again, we dont think Dalton set us back in atomic theory since he was the pioneer. Why the hate for any other pioneer then?
For instance, Plato and other Ancient Greek philosophers theorized about the basic building blocks of matter—what their shapes and natures were. That question has become one of physics.
That’s why philosophy is referred to as the Mother of the Sciences.
This hardly makes philosophy worthy of your description as lacking “tangible results.”
Someone should probably let you know that science is a subset of philosophy (or "philosophism" as you seem to think it's called).
Not really. To use your analogy a bit, the GGP was basically rejecting human language in favor of English on account of it being so wonderful that English-speakers visited the moon. It's nonsense. If you reject philosophy, you reject science.
It doesn't take that much charity to interpret that what the original poster was saying as, "I reject the subset of philosophy that is not science, on the grounds that the subset which is science has all of the value," a legitimate position at least which is not tautologically false. I guess the reason why one thing being good could make another thing bad would be that time spent using nonscientific philosophical techniques to answer questions incurs an opportunity cost, that you are not using scientific techniques to answer them. Or even that trying to answer questions that scientific techniques can't solve incurs an opportunity cost, that you could be answering other questions that you had a chance at solving. (That would be a consistent belief if you thought that nonscientific thought couldn't make progress on questions, even if you conceded that scientific techniques could not make progress on all questions.)
I think the original post has shown your reinterpretation is probably too charitable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26345215
It's a pretty classic case of celebrating science without really acknowledging or understanding its foundations and dependencies.
Why is it that we need to constantly go here with accusations of ignorance? Do we really need to do that all the time? Somehow philosophy contains everything, all the time. You're ignorant! No you're ignorant! My thing contains your thing! No, my thing contains your thing!
Read my comment again. Why do some philosophical problems get turned over and over for centuries with no progress and yet the empiricism of Science has absolutely revolutionized human life? Why should we be so afraid of some neuroscientist who hasn't read Searle? I mean, isn't he going to just stumble on it again? If it's true, then they would, right?
Are all philosophical questions resolvable by Science? I think no. But there are so many questions that I feel are poorly informed by a cloistered set of Philosophical priests who speak another language they made up. Frankly, I don't feel bad when they are "galled" that a scientist takes a new look at a problem they've made no progress on.
So, I just fundamentally disagree that Philosophy contains everything that has something to do with thinking or believing stuff. It's an oversimplification to the point of being vacuously true.
Honestly.
It is not solutions what Philosophers seek. Mostly they pose questions.
The problem with Science is that it just answers them. And Scientist deem that sufficient.
The hard thing is to tackle questions which have only personal answers. Universal ones are easy.
My first thought was about the Timaeus (geometrical structures of matter/elements), but I haven't read any treatments about Plato's theory of forms and the development of mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Plat...