facts of evolution

[eFestivals]

The knowledge of science, medicine, technology and so on comes from philosophy. That's what created them. They are propelled by a philosophy. No school of knowledge is free of philosophy. Each one has a philosophy. I've already explained this to you.

they might "come from philosophy" - they do not grow out of a philosophy. The philosophy part is entirely separate.

For example, science might want to find a cure for cancer. How does the process work? Does someone first say "what does philosophy say about how I should go about this", or do they simply get on with doing what they're going to do using their existing knowledgebase?

If they come up with a cure, then it's true that a driveller of philosophy could say "they used xyz methodology" or even perhaps "this exposes a new methodology", but what the cure-finding person did in the first place made no reference to those things except via the accumulated knowledge they already held.

And so you see, the study of philosophy doesn't take us anywhere new, or actually help with this progression of accumulating knowledge. It's merely an aside.

But what it does do is mis-lead, as you demonstrated so clearly in this thread.

Rather than you look at what there actually is in evo-devo you looked only at philosophy and believed that that could tell you everything about evo-devo without need to reference evo-devo itself. A fatal error in the pursuit of knowledge!!!

And the same sorts of things are going on all over - the 'credit crunch' has its origin in the same 'logical madness'. A philosophy informed people that they could do what they've been doing and so they did it, without any reference to the reality of the finite-ism of wealth; and so it's all come crashing down around them.

There's a million other examples of this. If you can't see them then it's simply the case that you're blinded by your blind faith in the usefulness of the drivelling of philosophy.

[worm]

they might "come from philosophy" - they do not grow out of a philosophy. The philosophy part is entirely separate.

Edited February 6, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

No it isn't.

That is the philosophy.

Namely, that we will use the knowledge of our past philosophies to extend our current knowledge systems. That is a philosophy. Thought applied to knowledge to acrue more knowledge. The hypothesis of science is the philosophy. The purpose of science is the philosophy.

I've already explain this. You don't understand what philosophy is. Clearly.

that's just word play, wrapping up what's already there in a label you call philosophy.

You cannot have philosophy - (your words) the knowledge of knowledge - without there first being knowledge and knowledge of that knowledge. Only once you have those things is philosophy able to come into existence.

And - logically - that shows that philosophy is simply claiming for itself what already exists.

As I said, adding f**k all.

[worm]

that's just word play

[worm]

You cannot have philosophy - (your words) the knowledge of knowledge - without there first being knowledge and knowledge of that knowledge. Only once you have those things is philosophy able to come into existence.

Edited February 6, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

We've found the reason why you don't like philosophy.

You mean you didn't know already?

You, and people like you, are the reason. It makes you think that very wrong shite is right, and that has bad consequences onto others.

All of which could be avoided if you'd take your head from your arse and look at reality.

[eFestivals]

So you can't have science? You can't have art? You can't have anything? As they are all philosophy driven.

no, those things are knowledge driven. The idea of philosophy need not exist for those things to exist exactly as they are.

[worm]

no, those things are knowledge driven. The idea of philosophy need not exist for those things to exist exactly as they are.

[eFestivals]

As soon as you use language, you're using philosophy.

translation: let's invent an idea that makes us seems superspecialgreat and via which we can claim ourselves as the source of all knowledge.

[worm]

You mean you didn't know already?

Edited February 6, 2009 by worm

[worm]

translation: let's invent an idea that makes us seems superspecialgreat and via which we can claim ourselves as the source of all knowledge.

Edited February 6, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Very mature.

If you don't like it (which I'm taking to mean me), stop going on about it. You've got your philosophy, I've got mine. You don't wish to exchange, so why bother discussing?!

I'm as entitled to express my opinion as you.

And as you're invariably wrong about all sorts of shite as a direct result of your belief in philosophy having the meaning to all of life the universe and everything exactly as you've been in this thread, I will do.

Get over it.

[pedmills]

The two of you are using completely different definitions/concepts of what philosophy is. If you weren't so arrogant and convinced each other was wrong you would see this. Neil means philosophy as in the subject which discusses in his opinion useless things like existence and reality. Worm means philosophy as in a certain way of thinking in its most basic terms.

I'm gonna think of philosophy as the discussion of issues which cannot be obviously classified as true or false (unlike science where arguably either a theory is correct or it isn't).

Philosophy DOES have real life applications and is not entirely useless. Yes, pondering over whether we actually exist is pretty futile but imagine philosophy in terms of morals. Is it okay to kill animals for food? I would see that as a philosophical question. It has applications as people will use it to decide whether or not to be vegetarian. Philosophical discussions to do with the existence of God could shape someone's religious beliefs, which would greatly affect their life. A lot of politics involves philosophy. So Neil, I greatly disagree that philosophy is just a load of shite.

[eFestivals]

I don't think that philosophy is just a load of shite. But ultimately it's nowt more than a way of categorising what you already know.

What is a load of shite (and is put forwards by a certain person posting on these forums) is thinking that philosophy can inform a person about a thing without that person first knowing about that thing. Philosophy adds nothing.

Philosophy (from your example) can inform you of nothing about whether or not it's right to eat meat. Only you can make that descision, based only on what you yourself choose as relevant and how much weight you choose to give to the things you consider relevant.

[worm]

The two of you are using completely different definitions/concepts of what philosophy is.

[worm]

Philosophy (from your example) can inform you of nothing about whether or not it's right to eat meat. Only you can make that descision, based only on what you yourself choose as relevant and how much weight you choose to give to the things you consider relevant.

[eFestivals]

That is a philosophy.

so it might be.

But it tells you nothing you didn't already know. Like all philosophies.

[worm]

But it tells you nothing you didn't already know. Like all philosophies.

Edited February 12, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

That's because it's a 130 year old philosophy. It's inherent to us now.

Did Marx tell us something we didn't already know? Did Wittgenstein tell us something we didn't already know? Did Heidegger tell us something that we didn't already know? Have these things changed the (western) world and the way it works and thinks? I'd answer yes in each instance.

they might have changed things, but only via a 'rallying cry' scenario.

They didn't say anything that wasn't already realised. They each simply wrapped it up in one easy source.

In the "there is a god" thread, Atlantean says he's "with Dirkheim", but I bet he's not. I bet he already knew for himself what Dirkheim says without ever having heard it sourced from Dirkheim. Yet Dirkheim gets the credit for his own thoughts. The fool.

As you so smartly said, "philosophy is the knowledge of knowledge" - which literally says that it can bring nothing new itself. It has to already be known BEFORE it gets summarised into an easy package that the likes of you get down on your knees and worship.

All philosophy does it give things labels and put things into boxes. Trying to use it outside of what it references as you try to do is the logic of insanity.

[worm]

they might have changed things, but only via a 'rallying cry' scenario.

Edited February 12, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Why a rallying cry? I think you've just attached that. They simply realised things and expressed them.

yep, but what they realised (which others would have also realised, just not written down) only came to change the world because of the people who got behind wat they'd written down and who treated them in a god-like manner for what they'd written down.

Funnily enough, I know a modern-day worshipper of philosophy too. I wonder who that is.

How do you know this?

how do you know te opposite?

Take Hagel for instance. No one on earth knew what the f**k he was on about. It took years of study to fathom him out. People are still coming to terms with Heidegger now.

it takes people weeks to work out what the moronic jargon means in average contractual terms and conditions too. All that means is that it's full of moronic jargon.

As for people taking years of study to work out what he meant, what they're really doing is interpreting, not working out. So they're making up bollox no less than he was.

That's exactly the same as science and/or anything else.

I know, as I've been saying and as you've up til now been disputing.

Which just goes to show that there's nothing you love more than claiming others ideas as your own, eh? Just like philosophy.

It can. It can reveal the incongruencies of knowledge systems. It's doing this at the moment with modernism.

does it add to what can be extracted from knowledge systems? Nope, not one iota.

That's what we all do.

I know. Hence the fact that philosophy is merely stating the obvious is definitively proven.

You just sound to me like an anti-intellectual. Nothing more.

There has to be a point to knowledge for it to be intellectual, you might as well watch grass grow as navel gazing. There is no point to philosophy, none at all. It adds nothing that isn't already known, as you've just agreed.

[worm]

yep, but what they realised (which others would have also realised, just not written down) only came to change the world because of the people who got behind wat they'd written down and who treated them in a god-like manner for what they'd written down.

Edited February 12, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, others realised because they were educated. We could have different knowledge systems had we had different philosophies. You're anti-education.

nope, I'm pro-education but anti-idiocy.

You've shown in this thread where being "educated" about philosophy takes you. Into the wrong shit and nowhere else.

The briefest moments education on evolution however would have had you right in a instant.

You made the statement.

and you made the opposite statement. Neither of us has definitive proof for our views on that particular thing, but the prove is ther in my favour and not yours for countless extremely similar things.

The philosophy of averages is on my side.

No. You've been stating that science is not philosophically led, yet it is.

show me one scientist who references philosophy as his first source when wanting to discover anything.

You are only able to claim science as philosophically led because some arsehole invented philosophy as a way of claiming other's knowledge as theirs. It's the same bollox power game as *ALWAYS* corrupts, as the endless list of failings that have come from it definitively show.

Yes. That's what it does.

Then give me the evidence for your claim.

Give me just one example where philosophy has added to what can be extracted from knowledge systems.

As you can't, do the wise thing and shut the f**k up, eh? It is a logical impossibility; the knowledge has to first exist for philosophy to extract anything from it, but all it could extract is the knowledge that's already there, so nothing is added.

You can't have someone answer a question in the negative and take that to mean the positive. Philosophy won't let you.

But I just did.

Which is further prove that philosophy is worthless shit.

[worm]

You've shown in this thread where being "educated" about philosophy takes you. Into the wrong shit and nowhere else.

[eFestivals]

Then we aren't discussing anymore. You've concluded. You disagree. No more discussion to be had. Adios conchita!

What's to discuss?

You were simply totally incorrect, because YOU value philosophy more than YOU value education.

YOU are the proof of what is shit about philosophy.

I'd have hoped that you wised up because of it, yet yesterday you showed yet again that you think you can understand everything from philosophy via your rejection of educational sources in favour of your fatally flawed philosophies.

And you dare to call me anti-education.