facts of evolution

[eFestivals]

That's modernism.

Now who's being inconsistent?

No, that's accumulation.

Which came first? The accumulation of knowledge, or some saddo insisting one day fairly recently that it must be called 'modernism' so that he could claim he'd invented something when he's done nothing of the sort?

Philosophy is knowledge you complete moron!

Philosophy is the knowledge of knowledge.

Hmmmm .... and you call me inconsistent.

You got it right second time. But only sort of.

If it was the knowledge of knowledge it would be right and not wrong. It's an attempt at the knowledge of knowledge, but a failed attempt.

[eFestivals]

Well, given that philosophy is science then it is philosophy that brought about those real things.

The discoveries of science are infinitely repeatable. Are the discoveries of philosophy?

And before you start, yes, I know you can drone on forever with idiocy, but that's not what's meant.

[eFestivals]

What philosophy is. Which you clearly don't.

philosophy: the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of reality and existence.

Does philosophy really fit that laughable definition? How can it? Those that subscribe to it know it's worth f**k all, and so 'reason' is out of the equation before you even get started.

From that definition, as soon as any part of it is proven wrong it MUST be discarded and declared non-philosophy, else it ceases to use any reasoning.

What you have is not philosophy, tho you laughably like to call it such. Does it hold true to reality? Nope; You knowz it. Yet you continue to call it philosophy.

[worm]

No, that's accumulation.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Which is a philosophy.

only if post-applied.

It's happening anyway, philosophy or no philosophy.

No, it's knowledge of knowledge. There is no failure to it unless you put a way of conducting it over it. For instance, modernism is one such way in which 'the knowledge of knowledge' was explored given the, then, succes of science and liberty. Marxism swiftly put an end to that though.

does this "knowledge of knowledge" make any useful sense? Or is it merely a way for very sad people to disappear up their own arses in the pursuit of the useless?

There is only one right answer.

Firstly, no they aren't.

oh, really? Then I bow down to your true genius and the redefining of all knowledge by just you from here on in.

Wrong.

oh, sorry - shall I dial Cambridge University's number for you, so you can then tell them that they've had the basis of all their studies wrong for the last 800 years?

FFS.

[worm]

only if post-applied.

It's happening anyway, philosophy or no philosophy.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Give me some knowledge without it being philosophy bound?

What you call 'philosophy' has hi-jacked knowledge and claimed it as its own.

Before there was ever anything called philosophy there was knowledge, science and more. And there was knowledge of knowledge. This all works along fine without need of reference of the twaddle you subscribe to.

Your twaddle adds nothing. It's no different to having a full understanding of maths and then being told there's something extra to be learnt from a numbers puzzle that has no meaning but to itself.

[worm]

What you call 'philosophy' has hi-jacked knowledge and claimed it as its own.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Your twaddle adds nothing.

[feral chile]

do you believe the social sciences have value Neil?

Apparently, sociology owes a lot to philosophy.

origin of sociology

Would any of the social sciences count themselves as 100% correct?

Does science?

Isn't the core of the scientific method the idea that the hypothesis must in principle be falsifiable?

Therefore in principle scientific findings can only herald results based on probability. Not 100% correct but likely.

Edited February 5, 2009 by feral chile

[feral chile]

What is classed as an eye? Something that sense light?

In some lower vertibrates the Pineal gland acts as an eye and is even structured like an eye with a lense and other associated parts. In reptiles, as it's very close to the skin it senses light and lets them know when they should be sleeping (it also releases "sleep chemicals"). In birds it's not quite so close, I read one source that says that it can still still sense light and the theory is that this is how they navigate, other sources say that it contains magnetic sensors for navigation which would involve a whole new sense. Whereas the human pineal is burried deep in the brain.

Has this not evolved seperately from normal eyes?

[pinback]

oo, when is an eye not an eye? Is that philosophy or science?

[feral chile]

What do you call a deer with no eyes?

[worm]

oo, when is an eye not an eye? Is that philosophy or science?

[worm]

Wittgenstien.................

Logic Replacing Philosophy

The End of Philosophy (ala Neil)

The End of Platonic Philosophy and Beginning of Language.

Excellent lectures and spot on for this discussion.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[worm]

so... are you saying that you have to be human to be accepted as an experiencing being?

is strong AI always going to be an impossible idea then?

what about the idea of non-human organic life forms?

How would we ever know if another non-human being was a being with experience?

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[feral chile]

That first one's got problems already. If you take a functional approach like that, it follows that computers understand the meaning of words.

which one's section 5? is it the last one?

Edited February 5, 2009 by feral chile

[worm]

That first one's got problems already. If you take a functional approach like that, it follows that computers understand the meaning of words.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[worm]

which one's section 5? is it the last one?

[feral chile]

Yeah.

[eFestivals]

You haven't answered the question.

says the man who refuses to answer any questions.

I said: What you call 'philosophy' has hi-jacked knowledge and claimed it as its own.

And it's true.

People discover things via their own paths. Only later is a philosophy post-applied to it. It might have a root in what you'd call "philosophical ideas", but it's not arrived at by a reading of those ideas and then someone saying "I can do something useful with that". They do something useful, and then a philosophy is post-applied to it if anyone is bothered to.

(they might be following what you'd document as a philosophical process which they acquired thru the ever increasing accumulation of knowledge - but they don't give a shit about that, they're just getting on with it).

It's not the knowledge of knowledge I have issues with. It's the pronouncements on the knowledge of knowledge which is what you do. What use are those pronouncements? I know they're wrong just as you know they're wrong, and nothing at all of use has ever come from them.

The useful stuff comes despite them. After all, you do not get to any useful destination by travelling down the wrong path unless you get lucky - in which case philosophy can't claim the credit.

Earlier in this thread, via my prompting, Chris correctly said that science uses a mix of empiricism and something else (I forget what, and stating it isn't required here). What that really boils down to is that it uses neither.

If you try to follow either empiricism or anything else, eventually it takes you somewhere wrong - thus proving itself wrong to all other things, other than to itself (the 'self-serving' I keep going on about that you don't get). Just because an idea works back on itself proves nothing - it has to be consistently applicable to other things to be of use.

So the reality is that there's something else, something we've yet to find that is what is really applicable to (from Chris' statement) science. When we find it it might be useful .... but far more likely is that a useful thing will be discovered which reveals that new method; that is, after all, how every philosophical idea comes about (and so always 'post-applied').

And then you have the fact that every single philosophical pronouncement is flawed at some level (as you *know* is the case). So it cannot ever be "the knowledge of knowledge", as knowledge by definition something that is true. Because of its flaws it's more correctly "the falsehoods of knowledge" - it might reveal where you are wrong; it cannot tell you where you are right.

And when it tells you where you are wrong? The phrase "no shit sherlock" comes to mind - it only tells you what is already glaringly obvious to anyone not already sucked up into the wrong idea that it's properly useful. That being sucked up into the wrong idea of it being useful is what blinds you to the glaringly obvious .... which is exactly what you have done in this thread, where you are blind to what is *REALLY* known and in its place you put your fantasies of wrongness - known to you as "philosophy".

You are the perfect demonstration of all that is wrong about philosophy, via how philosophy makes you wrong about countless things just as it did in this thread. You abandon any attempt for finding the "the knowledge of knowledge" and replace it with what you *know* to be wrong, what you call philosophy.

Why waste time with what you 100% know to be wrong, and which will forever take you down the wrong paths because it's known to be wrong (as happened here)? Philosophy would have a use if you could suddenly find something new for it that did work .... but the reality is that you never will do, just as it never ever has. Something else, something useful (like via science) will be discovered, and from that might (only might) come 'the right philosophy'. It will never come from navel gazing.

[worm]

says the man who refuses to answer any questions.

[worm]

I said: What you call 'philosophy' has hi-jacked knowledge and claimed it as its own.

And it's true.

Edited February 6, 2009 by worm

[worm]

It's not the knowledge of knowledge I have issues with. It's the pronouncements on the knowledge of knowledge which is what you do. What use are those pronouncements? I know they're wrong just as you know they're wrong, and nothing at all of use has ever come from them.

[worm]

Why waste time with what you 100% know to be wrong, and which will forever take you down the wrong paths because it's known to be wrong (as happened here)? Philosophy would have a use if you could suddenly find something new for it that did work .... but the reality is that you never will do, just as it never ever has. Something else, something useful (like via science) will be discovered, and from that might (only might) come 'the right philosophy'. It will never come from navel gazing.