Print
Science is not philosophy
by John Moore, National Post
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=607100&p=1
Science is not philosophy
John Moore, National Post
You have to admire the integrity of conspiracy theories. They're great Mobius strips of self-contained false reasoning and evidence able to contort to meet any external challenge to the perfection of their closed loops. Sept. 11 deniers will insist a lack of plane wreckage on the apron of the Pentagon is proof the building was struck by a missile. Show them a photograph of an engine lying on the lawn and they'll exclaim "Aha! That was planted!"
And so it is with the conspiracy laid out in the new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed hosted by the droll economist/actor/game show host/Republican Ben Stein. Expelled posits that the entire scientific establishment is enslaved to the theory of evolution, and in order to protect the Darwinian temple it engages in an ongoing campaign to crush all challenges to its "religion." The principal victim of this rearguard action is the would-be challenging theory called Intelligent Design (ID).
ID is often referred to as Creationism light. In fact it's more Creationism in drag. Though its proponents claim scientific neutrality, they are usually overtly religious people affiliated with overtly religious institutions. They have written essays and books about why ID is science. And yet when all the sophistry is boiled down, the theory amounts to "living things are complicated. Some-one must have made them."
It may be a sublime idea worthy of religious and philosophical contemplation, but it fails to meet the definition of science. It can't be proven and it can't be tested. Complaining that science won't take ID seriously is like grieving the fact that mathematicians won't consider a flower pot to be a number.
The denial of the imprimatur of science on ID is the source of its proponents' assumed victimhood and the wellspring from which most of Ben Stein's movie draws its inspiration. We're introduced to a half-dozen individuals whom he contends were "destroyed" for promoting ID. A deeper probe into their cases reveals that far from wide-eyed innocents most of them set out to stir up trouble.
Professor Richard Sternberg is famous for having ensured the first ever publication of an Intelligent Design paper in a scientific journal. He claims he was fired and defamed in retaliation. The evidence reveals Sternberg is an active promoter of ID, the paper had no business being in the journal and he was never fired. He and other proponents of ID did get a lot of nasty e-mail. Welcome to the modern world. Mother Theresa got hate mail.
Journalist Pamela Winnick tells Stein, "If you give any credence to Intelligent Design, you are finished as a journalist." Winnick says she was sacked from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette over a news item that gave favourable treatment to ID in 2000. In fact she continued to publish in the Gazette and is found in the pages of respected newspapers to this day. She also wrote and had published a book titled, A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion.
The natural reaction of any reasonable person to these persecutions (were they true) is "this is terrible. Why doesn't anyone do anything to help these people?" Which brings us to the closing of the conspiracy loop. Expelled maintains the containment of ID is the concerted action of scientists, academic journals, the courts and the media. Yes, this column is further proof of the conspiracy.
Expelled is at its most risible when it tries to establish a direct line from Darwin to eugenics and genocide. Stein quotes from a passage in Darwin's writing that appears to endorse the notion that for a species to thrive the infirm must be culled. He omits the part where Darwin insists this would be "evil" and that man's care for the weak is "the noblest part of our nature." When I asked Stein about this on my radio show he deadpanned, "If any Darwin fans are listening and we have misquoted him we are sorry … we don't mean to diss Darwin."
The core of the religious complaint against evolution rests on a false syllogism: Darwin leads automatically to atheism which leads to a world without moral order; therefore science is the enemy of God.
It's a maddening false supposition because while scientists are free to believe in God (and an estimated 40% do) science itself remains neutral. Expelled cribs from the Michael Moore school of documentary film making, masking advocacy journalism as neutral storytelling deviously transforming science's neutrality into hostility.
It is often observed that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you. It is equally true that when everyone insists you are wrong about something it doesn't necessarily mean they're engaged in an elaborate conspiracy. You could just be wrong. - John Moore is the drive home host on Toronto's Newstalk 1010 CFRB. Outside of Southern Ontario he can be heard at www.cfrb.com.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=607100&p=1
Science is not philosophy
John Moore, National Post
You have to admire the integrity of conspiracy theories. They're great Mobius strips of self-contained false reasoning and evidence able to contort to meet any external challenge to the perfection of their closed loops. Sept. 11 deniers will insist a lack of plane wreckage on the apron of the Pentagon is proof the building was struck by a missile. Show them a photograph of an engine lying on the lawn and they'll exclaim "Aha! That was planted!"
And so it is with the conspiracy laid out in the new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed hosted by the droll economist/actor/game show host/Republican Ben Stein. Expelled posits that the entire scientific establishment is enslaved to the theory of evolution, and in order to protect the Darwinian temple it engages in an ongoing campaign to crush all challenges to its "religion." The principal victim of this rearguard action is the would-be challenging theory called Intelligent Design (ID).
ID is often referred to as Creationism light. In fact it's more Creationism in drag. Though its proponents claim scientific neutrality, they are usually overtly religious people affiliated with overtly religious institutions. They have written essays and books about why ID is science. And yet when all the sophistry is boiled down, the theory amounts to "living things are complicated. Some-one must have made them."
It may be a sublime idea worthy of religious and philosophical contemplation, but it fails to meet the definition of science. It can't be proven and it can't be tested. Complaining that science won't take ID seriously is like grieving the fact that mathematicians won't consider a flower pot to be a number.
The denial of the imprimatur of science on ID is the source of its proponents' assumed victimhood and the wellspring from which most of Ben Stein's movie draws its inspiration. We're introduced to a half-dozen individuals whom he contends were "destroyed" for promoting ID. A deeper probe into their cases reveals that far from wide-eyed innocents most of them set out to stir up trouble.
Professor Richard Sternberg is famous for having ensured the first ever publication of an Intelligent Design paper in a scientific journal. He claims he was fired and defamed in retaliation. The evidence reveals Sternberg is an active promoter of ID, the paper had no business being in the journal and he was never fired. He and other proponents of ID did get a lot of nasty e-mail. Welcome to the modern world. Mother Theresa got hate mail.
Journalist Pamela Winnick tells Stein, "If you give any credence to Intelligent Design, you are finished as a journalist." Winnick says she was sacked from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette over a news item that gave favourable treatment to ID in 2000. In fact she continued to publish in the Gazette and is found in the pages of respected newspapers to this day. She also wrote and had published a book titled, A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion.
The natural reaction of any reasonable person to these persecutions (were they true) is "this is terrible. Why doesn't anyone do anything to help these people?" Which brings us to the closing of the conspiracy loop. Expelled maintains the containment of ID is the concerted action of scientists, academic journals, the courts and the media. Yes, this column is further proof of the conspiracy.
Expelled is at its most risible when it tries to establish a direct line from Darwin to eugenics and genocide. Stein quotes from a passage in Darwin's writing that appears to endorse the notion that for a species to thrive the infirm must be culled. He omits the part where Darwin insists this would be "evil" and that man's care for the weak is "the noblest part of our nature." When I asked Stein about this on my radio show he deadpanned, "If any Darwin fans are listening and we have misquoted him we are sorry … we don't mean to diss Darwin."
The core of the religious complaint against evolution rests on a false syllogism: Darwin leads automatically to atheism which leads to a world without moral order; therefore science is the enemy of God.
It's a maddening false supposition because while scientists are free to believe in God (and an estimated 40% do) science itself remains neutral. Expelled cribs from the Michael Moore school of documentary film making, masking advocacy journalism as neutral storytelling deviously transforming science's neutrality into hostility.
It is often observed that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you. It is equally true that when everyone insists you are wrong about something it doesn't necessarily mean they're engaged in an elaborate conspiracy. You could just be wrong. - John Moore is the drive home host on Toronto's Newstalk 1010 CFRB. Outside of Southern Ontario he can be heard at www.cfrb.com.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 81 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #198541 by MikedubB on June 24, 2008 at 8:33 am
"scientists are free to believe in God (and an estimated 40% do)"That's news to me. What version of 'God' is he talking about?
Other Comments by MikedubB
3. Comment #198544 by bugaboo on June 24, 2008 at 8:38 am
40% of scientists believe in god? By whose estimation? I am deeply supicious of that stat.Other Comments by bugaboo
4. Comment #198548 by BeyondBelief on June 24, 2008 at 8:41 am
BRILLIANT!
Why won't the bastards let my flower pot be a number??
This whole article is pithy, quick, sharp and dead-on. Brevity is the soul of wit, and John Moore has got a big soul by that standard.
[conspiracy mode] He's probably related to Michael!!![/conspiracy mode]
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
5. Comment #198550 by Border Collie on June 24, 2008 at 8:42 am
OK, so one more apparently rational person goes to see the movie, thus, validating it with the dollar yet again. And, it's 'critiqued' one more time, keeping it twitching in its death throes, when it could just die the natural death it deserves. Validation by the dollar is the same whether it comes from a IDiot or an atheist. I love EricTheRed's comment!Other Comments by Border Collie
6. Comment #198561 by mordacious1 on June 24, 2008 at 8:58 am
BorderWhat was Eric's comment, my page shows a blank, someone deleted it?
Other Comments by mordacious1
7. Comment #198565 by Manson on June 24, 2008 at 9:01 am
Great article. One little nit, though...ID is not a theory. It is at best a hypothesis. But more aptly just speculation since a hypothesis would require at least some shred of evidence.
Other Comments by Manson
8. Comment #198568 by mordacious1 on June 24, 2008 at 9:05 am
We get a lot of articles linked by Linda Ward Selbie. Any relation to Lalla Ward? And is Lalla related to Sela Ward? Just wondering, I guess Ward is a fairly common name, but...Other Comments by mordacious1
9. Comment #198572 by mordacious1 on June 24, 2008 at 9:09 am
The only "Scientists" that still have that high of % of belief, are medical doctors, if you include them as scientists, I don't. The number is more like 7% that believe in some sort of god, including deism.Other Comments by mordacious1
10. Comment #198576 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 9:14 am
I doubt it mordacious. Not all scientists are evolutionary biologists. I work with scores of scientists and I haven't done a poll, but, from observations I'm guessing quite a few of them believe.I think there's a big diference between the US and Euroupe. The author was probably quoting a US number.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
11. Comment #198580 by Barbara on June 24, 2008 at 9:17 am
mordacious1 wrote:
Border
What was Eric's comment, my page shows a blank, someone deleted it?
I think that's the point Border Collie was making. Sometimes saying nothing says it all.
Other Comments by Barbara
12. Comment #198582 by Sciros on June 24, 2008 at 9:17 am
Yeah, 40% for actual scientific researchers would sound pretty ludicrous. Anyway, Expelled is an epic failure and really shouldn't be given the honor of being written about, hah. Other Comments by Sciros
13. Comment #198583 by Spinoza on June 24, 2008 at 9:17 am
I find this deeply insulting to philosophy. Other Comments by Spinoza
14. Comment #198600 by 82abhilash on June 24, 2008 at 9:36 am
Science is not philosophy - agree. And philosophy is not science.I have a useful definition of philosophy here:
Philosophy is an attempt in the part of man's unaided reason to give a fundamental explanation to the nature of things.
In which case:
Science is an attempt in the part of man's reason aided by experimentation, to give a fundamental explanation to the nature of things.
Which means at it best, philosophers and scientists can help each other, (especially if the philosopher is Daniel Dennett). At its worst philosophers can mislead scientists by promoting a false institutive sense about the world we live in.
But if philosophy is informed by science, then philosophers can help scientists ask the right questions, thus greatly catalyzing the process by which scientific advancements are achieved.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
15. Comment #198607 by J.C. Samuelson on June 24, 2008 at 9:49 am
@ MikedubB, bugaboo, and mordacious ---
The 40% figure is based on a 1997 study published in Nature in June, 1998. According to my notes it was by Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham, and titled, "The More They Learn The Less They Believe" which was mostly geared toward showing how religious belief has decreased.
I can't find the original article anymore, but you can read about it here, here, here (under "Unbelief Among Top Scientists Growing"), and here.
That was probably the last time anyone did any kind of serious study on the topic of religious beliefs among scientists. As it's over 10 years old, it's probably somewhat dated. In any event, with compartmentalization at one's disposal, it isn't that hard to reconcile the conflicting beliefs.
This article leaves much to be desired, but it'll do, I suppose. Not to be negative, but I guess I'm somewhat jaded by the fact that a) this is a Canadian, not U.S. publication, and b) it's an opinion piece rather than being presented as a factual news item. I'd much rather see an item in the "Science" section of a major newspaper (if there is one) that thoroughly debunks "Expelled" as nonsense for the lay person. Unfortunately, debunkings of this kind are usually only found in the blogosphere, scientific/skeptical publications, and fine sites like this.
* EDIT: Correction. There were two studies by the same researchers. The Nature article I mentioned is the wrong one. The correct one was published in April, 1997
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
16. Comment #198628 by peahix on June 24, 2008 at 10:18 am
we should expect a whole new round of these kinds of articles coming from canada, as expelled is opening there this weekend...Other Comments by peahix
17. Comment #198631 by prettygoodformonkeys on June 24, 2008 at 10:20 am
when everyone insists you are wrong about something it doesn't necessarily mean they're engaged in an elaborate conspiracy. You could just be wrongSimple is always best.
I'm glad to see this talked about everywhere, not just in the science sections.
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
18. Comment #198642 by Kricket on June 24, 2008 at 10:42 am
If the flower pot is accompanied by a sperm whale its number would be 42.Other Comments by Kricket
19. Comment #198648 by cholerymorbilus on June 24, 2008 at 10:46 am
I was just thinking; if the thesis of the film is that people who believe in ID are being laughed out or "expelled" from the scientific community-- it seems the question isn't really whether or not that's true, but if it would actually be a bad thing. If one argues that the media is skewed a bit toward the secular-- why do we need to argue that it isn't? I think a better arguement might be that it isn't skewed ENOUGH. People can say or believe what they like, but we don't have to give equal time and credence to every cockimaimy idea. Personally I wouldn't have known about "Expelled" if not for Richarddawkins.net, but trailers for "Religulous" are readily available. That's how it ought to be. Maybe we should make an "Expelled II," outlining why scientists who believe in God should not be taken seriously.Other Comments by cholerymorbilus
20. Comment #198702 by Lil_Xunzian on June 24, 2008 at 11:26 am
I agree with Spinoza. I'm not even sure the author of this article knows what type of intellectual activity philosophy is. In any event, no philosopher would take Stein's "film" seriously. Even catholic philosophers at places like Boston College are more than happy to point out that ID is bonkers.Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian
21. Comment #198714 by mordacious1 on June 24, 2008 at 11:43 am
TeraMy bad. I was quoting a poll of "leading scientists", not scientists overall.
I have an excuse though. Have you ever stayed up all night with an autistic child who just had seven teeth pulled. Trust me, your brain wouldn't be functioning either.
Other Comments by mordacious1
22. Comment #198831 by WilliamP on June 24, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I think the title of this article should be "Philosophy is not Science" because it is about a type of philosopy (ID) that is passed off as science. The title suggests that science is not a type of philosophy, where he wants to say that philosophy is not a type of science.Anyway, I agree with the author that ID is a philosophical theory, but it is very poor philosophy. No person who is well educated in philosophy and not deluded would buy it. It's as good a philosophical theory as one you would hear from a high school educated hippy while doped up.
Other Comments by WilliamP
23. Comment #198843 by the great teapot on June 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I have read the article twice now and i am a little confused.Has the heading for another story been placed above this item by mistake. I can't see anywhere in the article where philosophy's relationship with science is discussed. Is it just me?
Apart from the missing correct heading it seems ok to me.
Other Comments by the great teapot
24. Comment #198900 by MPhil on June 24, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I agree with Spinoza, 82abhilash and others - this article is deeply ignorant and insulting.ID is NOT PHILOSOPHY - "PHILOSOPHY" does not mean "personal opinion, not really conforming to standards of rationality". It does not mean "ideological pseudoscience". Quite the opposite!
ID is not even a philosophical hypothesis. The design hypothesis itself is - not a particularly good one (and that has been recognized by most philosophers), but not ID. ID is simply ideological pseudoscience.
The ignorance and lack of education in such matters displayed by the author of this article is astounding. What a fool this person has made of herself.
The criticism of ID is - of course - fine, but to call ID "Philosophy", or to equate philosophy with such bullshit is deeply ignorant.
Other Comments by MPhil
25. Comment #198913 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 5:58 pm
mordacious1,No big deal. How's the kid doing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPhil,
I have a feeling you don't know what philosophy is.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS258US258&defl=en&q=define:philosophy&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Definitions of philosophy on the Web:
doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
love of wisdom (Plato)
home.salamander.com/~wmcclain/ev-glossary.html
a study of human morals, character and behavior
www.millicentrogers.org/glossary.htm
"The objects of philosophy . . . are upon the whole the same as those of religion. In both the object is Truth, in that supreme sense in which God and God only is Truth." Logic ยง 1.
www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel Glossary.htm
love of wisdom'; rational investigation of theories and principles or knowledge, existence, and conduct.
ablemedia.com/ctcweb/glossary/glossaryp.html
So basically philosophy can be just about anything.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
26. Comment #198915 by mordacious1 on June 24, 2008 at 6:05 pm
TeraI guess the vicodin is finally having some effect, his face is twice the size of normal though (looks like Rocky Balboa). He'll be fine, it's me I'm worried about, I'm heading for a psychotic break. Man, I wouldn't wish this on anyone, even David Robertson.
Other Comments by mordacious1
27. Comment #198920 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 6:22 pm
How many teeth did they pull?You'll be fine. In about thirty years it'll be all over :-p
Other Comments by TeraBrat
28. Comment #198921 by MPhil on June 24, 2008 at 6:24 pm
TeraBrat, excuse me - I'm studying philosophy. I have a very good idea what it is. The author should have said "a philosophy", which denotes any ideological position not possible to be known to be factual. I object to this use of the term "philosophy" in general because it denigrates the discipline of philosophy. It's like saying a dog digging in the dirt is doing "empirical science"!
But the author did not say "a philosophy", she used the general term "philosophy" which denotes the discipline.
Perhaps you might want to be a bit more careful before claiming someone doesn't know what something is.
I know what philosophy is the same way a physicist knows what physics is.
Other Comments by MPhil
29. Comment #198922 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Do you say "philosphy of science" or "a philosphy of science?"I know what philosophy is the same way a physicist knows what physics is.
And a religious person,a priest, could say that they know what religion is the way a physicist knows what physics is.
My guess is you'd ridicule them for saying that.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
30. Comment #198923 by mordacious1 on June 24, 2008 at 6:43 pm
TeraSeven.
Other Comments by mordacious1
31. Comment #198924 by MPhil on June 24, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Tera, I meant that ID is "a" philosophy like a neo-conservative mindset is "a" philosphy. It is certainly not philosophy. And comparing religion to philosophy just shows deep ignorance of the academic discipline of philosophy - especially philosophy nowadays.
I'm off... my interest in this is fading fast.
Other Comments by MPhil
32. Comment #198925 by Bonzai on June 24, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Mphil
excuse me - I'm studying philosophy. I have a very good idea what it is.
That is quite ironic for someone whose discipline is based on the premise that the practitioners of science don't know what science is and need the philosophers to tell them.
Sorry, just can't resist it.
Other Comments by Bonzai
33. Comment #198928 by acs on June 24, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Philosophy (at least natural philosophy) is the method of bringing information from outside of human knowledge into our heads. Science is a strict discipline of bringing observations into human knowledge. Ergo - Science is a restricted form of philosophy.Nonetheless, science is not religion.
Theology is a not natural philosophy. Rather, theology (including intelligent design) comes from the meta-physics branch of philosophy, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY OBSERVATIONS OUTSIDE OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IN ORDER TO WORK.
I think thats why I object to religion.
Other Comments by acs
34. Comment #198929 by Bonzai on June 24, 2008 at 7:05 pm
82abhilashthen philosophers can help scientists ask the right questions, thus greatly catalyzing the process by which scientific advancements are achieved.
Only in "sciences" that are not very developed such as cognitive "science". Since there is so much we don't know in these areas speculative opinions regularly pass for "results" so there is still a lot of room for the clever amateurs and generalists.It often requires quite a bit of in depth knowledge to know what are the "right" questions to ask. Philosophers can play a useful role when researchers are still at the stage of fishing.
Physics used to be somewhat like that too. As the field matured, the role of philosophers correspondingly diminished. No one in active physics research nowadays would need the arm chair philosophers to tell them what the right questions are. That would be a joke.
I think the maturity of a field can be fairly accurately measured by the uselessness of the philosophers.
Other Comments by Bonzai
35. Comment #198935 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 7:32 pm
30. Comment #198923 by mordacious1 on June 24, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Tera
Seven.
YIKES!!!!!
No wonder his face is swollen!!!! Must be in total agony.
I had one wisdom tooth pulled and I was in total agony, NOTHING stopped the pain. I literaly wanted to bang my head on the wall, climb the walls. I lived pretty close to a hospital and at two in the morning I walked over there to see if they had anything better to give me (they didn't). And I'm no woossie when it comes to pain.
It lessened but didn't completely disappear until they took out the stiches. I suspect one of the stiches was rubbing against a nerve end.
I feel for him, I truely do. And for you.
I hope this passes quickly.
Other Comments by TeraBrat
36. Comment #198937 by mordacious1 on June 24, 2008 at 7:46 pm
TeraTry being autistic, when if a feather falls on you, it can send you into a two hour meltdown, and you'll get an idea of what my night was like last night.
PS thanks, I'm really being a whiner today.
Other Comments by mordacious1
37. Comment #198939 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 7:49 pm
moracious1,You have every right to be a whiner today. I was telling you my experience just to give you some perspective of what it's like to have ONE tooth pulled (it was half embedded but it was still one tooth). I really can't imagine seven...I'm getting shooting pains all over just thinking about it...
Other Comments by TeraBrat
38. Comment #198948 by Laurie Fraser on June 24, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Bonzai:
With the greatest respect - tosh. As MPhil rightly points out, philosophy is THE discipline that investigates the nature of reason, and the way in which "knowledge" is procured from the workings of reason. As such, philosophy INFORMS science. I remember that a class of science undergrads had to do a class in "The Philosophy of Science" when I was at uni (studying philosophy). It was an eye-opener to these students to get a glimpse of how reason actually operates. All of those I spoke to said that studying philosophy had given them better skills in formulating questions, hypotheses, evaluations etc.
By the same token, ID and other religious claptraps are not "philosophical" in any sense at all, as they are, unlike science AND philosophy, unopen to falsification or even genuine critical evaluation.
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
39. Comment #198949 by Goldy on June 24, 2008 at 8:39 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophyReagerding science and philosophy - all in the definition :-) By the way, ever wonder what the Ph part of a PhD stood for? Or the Phil part of MPhil (I have one of those...in biological sciences)?
Mordacious1, I feel for you. Bad enough having teeth pulled, even worse when having your child have to go through that pain. It is hard enough to comfort a toddler - having an autistic child as you describe must be very very hard.
Edit - ID is not a science, nor a philosophy. It is a religion.
Other Comments by Goldy
40. Comment #198951 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Goldy, I think I asked about that when I was about nine. I wanted to know why it's doctor of philosophy when you didn't study philosphy. I never got a satisfying answer. It was pretty much "that's just the way it is" which means "I don't know".Other Comments by TeraBrat
41. Comment #198953 by Goldy on June 24, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I got the same, so I looked it up. That's how I heard of Natural Philosophy. And then someone told me that one had to research something no one else has done - going out into uncharted waters as it were. One has a hypothesis - an argument, if you will - which one has to defend. To defend, you need data and information, which is why one does the research. But in the end, it is your hypothesis which is the subject of your PhD - you are defending your philosophical "musings" on a particular subject, with evidence to back up your arguments from your research.Other Comments by Goldy
42. Comment #198954 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Thanks.Other Comments by TeraBrat
43. Comment #198965 by OverUsedChewToy on June 24, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Science and philosophy are different, but go hand-in-hand. Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy
44. Comment #198972 by Bonzai on June 24, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Laurie FraserAs MPhil rightly points out, philosophy is THE discipline that investigates the nature of reason, and the way in which "knowledge" is procured from the workings of reason.
The problem is philosophy as a discipline has surprisingly little of substance to say about these topics unless you consider endless verbal gymnastic to be some kind of knowledge. "-Isms" come and go like Paris high fashion. It is not clear in what way we can say definitively that we have actually learned something from the word games.
As such, philosophy INFORMS science
I am interested to know in exactly what way. This is only what philosophers want to believe. I am not sure that there is any profound point that a philosopher could have "informed" science that the scientists themselves have not or unable to come up with. Contrary to myths, people like Bacon and Popper didn't invent anything new, they just articulated what scientists have been doing anyway, and managed to only convey a caricature. I can understand how this may impress an undergraduate who doesn't have any experience in the real process of science.
Besides the often quoted people who write big books out of the parasitic activity of asserting "true" but more or less trivial, general points about "formulating questions, hypotheses, evaluations etc", "philosophy" also includes other luminaries such as Paul Feyerabend who claim to have some meta-insights about science which most scientists would rightly consider nonsense.But as far as philosophy goes, they are all respectable scholars. In philosophy "scholarship" apparently in a large part is just opinions dressed up in big words, convoluted verbal gymnastics and horribly constructed sentences.
. I remember that a class of science undergrads had to do a class in "The Philosophy of Science" when I was at uni (studying philosophy). It was an eye-opener to these students to get a glimpse of how reason actually operates.
I also took classes in "philosophy of science", it was just platitude as far as I can remember. Take a real math course (with proofs) and you'll see how reason and logic operate. Take a real degree in a hard science to learn about the scientific method. Listening to philosophers talk about it is, in my experience, like trying to learn how to write fictions from books with titles like " the ABC of writing fictions". Knowing the general rules, as far as there are rules, is of course the trivial part.Moreover, most real writers probably have never picked up such an instructional book to be "informed" about what they can only learn by doing.
All of those I spoke to said that studying philosophy had given them better skills in formulating questions, hypotheses, evaluations etc.
Maybe for liberal arts majors.
BTW, sorry for being a jackass, I just can't get over Mphil sometimes. Can you imagine someone posting under the handle MSC or PHD even if his real name is Michal Scum or Philip Dork?
Goldy I know of course that "Ph" in Ph.D. stands for "philosophy" but it is just a historical relic. I can't imagine what a Ph.D. in business has to do with "philosophy" except in the very broad sense that tera explained.
Other Comments by Bonzai
45. Comment #198976 by Goldy on June 24, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I can't imagine what a Ph.D. in business has to do with "philosophy" except in the very broad sense that tera explained.
Tried to explain in Comment #198953. Makes sense to me...but then, I wrote it, so it would :-D
Other Comments by Goldy
46. Comment #198984 by Raiko on June 25, 2008 at 12:55 am
I am always amazed by people's claims on the way they're treated after proclaiming belief in ID. In many cases it's more or less an account of how they should be treated, rather than how they are treated.If you're a journalist writing about science, or even worse an actual scientist, and declare ID scientifically valid, it's a strong indicator that you don't understand what science actually is and how it works. I don't see why such a person would expect this to not have any consequences.
Other Comments by Raiko
47. Comment #198994 by Barry Pearson on June 25, 2008 at 1:41 am
An observation linked to a question:
Typically, when I read material from philosophers I tend to get frustrated trying to see what relevance it has to me. Often it appears to be a matter of playing with words in an esoteric way that has little relevance to the real world. I am prepared to accept that the problem is mine. (I'm not widely read in philosophy).
But I have been reading books by Daniel C Dennett for a long time, (my first was "The Mind's I" with Douglas R Hofstadter, 1981), and each one is thought provoking and a pleasure to read.
Is he a different sort of philosopher, (better or worse?), a better writer, or just someone writing about I happen to be interested in?
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
48. Comment #199008 by Corylus on June 25, 2008 at 2:50 am
TeraBratMPhil,That is quite possibly one of the biggest 'foot in mouth' moments I have heard on here for some time.
I have a feeling you don't know what philosophy is.
Tera, yet another bit of friendly advice. Try clicking on someone's user name and reading their profile and/or quickly scanning their previous posts before making denigrating comments about them. (I thought you loathed rudeness BTW?).
It might prevent you from making a fool of yourself.
Other Comments by Corylus
49. Comment #199015 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 3:45 am
The problem is that in everyday use..."philosophy" = "just finkin', innit?"
Other Comments by Steve Zara
50. Comment #199019 by hungarianelephant on June 25, 2008 at 4:29 am
49. Comment #199015 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 3:45 am
The problem is that in everyday use...
"philosophy" = "just finkin', innit?"
Yup. And abstract, impractical finkin' at that. And there's a deep distrust in Anglo-American culture of anything perceived as intellectualism. Some of us will remember the bizarre spat a few years ago between John Major and others about who got the worst O-Levels. Visiting aliens would have shaken their topmost appendages and gone off to watch the tennis.
I have to say that some of the comments on this thread rather sadden me. Philosophy and science grew up together, but now seem to be barely on speaking terms. But science can't answer questions about how the technology it spins off should be deployed. In fact, it expressly disclaims the questions. If scientists and philosophers insist on seeing themselves as opposites, there's going to be a vacuum in this territory.
Guess who will be first in the queue to fill it?
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #198474 by EricTheRed on June 24, 2008 at 5:14 am
Other Comments by EricTheRed