RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Hi John There is not a scientist alive that learned to do science by reading Karl Popper. Popper was just a reporter, he observed how scientists work and described what he saw. And I don't think Popper was exactly a fount of wisdom. In chapter 37 of his 1976 (1976!!) book Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Popper says: Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program. Those are Popper's own words not mine, and this is not something to make Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science in general proud. I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be concerned in the slightest. First of all, be clear about what Popper said. After describing Darwinism as a metaphysical research program he continues: And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. Clearly Popper had huge respect for Darwinism. People misunderstand Popper here. For him 'metaphysical research programmes' were an essential part of science. It isn't a derogative term you know? Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in the footsteps of many Darwinists. It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie. 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. Can't see that ever being falsified. Of course, the gaff is that Darwin never used the term survival of the fittest. It is a gaff, but it isn't a big one. Secondly, I admire Popper for not just accepting Darwinism by rote. For calling things as he saw them, even if he called it wrong. Good for him. The fact he later acknowledged his mistake shows him to be honest. I like people who can admit they were wrong. No. Theres nothing here to embarrass anyone. All the best. Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:51:40 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Do they deny the existence of electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms. Brent On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have experienced. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking. If by physicalism you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism. Positivism hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach. Too many unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
with physicalism i mean a form of reductionism that is ideológical instead of metodological, in the sense that despise anything beyond the laws of physics. Physicalists despise chemistry and biology not to mention other disciplines. An scientist can use reductionism in a metodological way, for example, we can use quantum nechanics to better understand some chemical reactions. or we can use brain scanning or cognitive sciences to help in the study of the mind. What is ideológical is to deny or despise anything above your favorite discipline. 2013/9/7 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking. If by physicalism you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism. Positivism hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach. Too many unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Kant's disproof of materialism and empiricism
On 06 Sep 2013, at 23:03, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, A simple question. Lucid dreams are such that you are awake in your dream. ? I can ascribe meaning to this as some metaphor, but of course, when we dream in the nocturnal sleep we are asleep, and thus, with the usual definition, not awake. I would say that a lucid dream is a dream in which we believe that we are dreaming. It is reassuring in some nightmare (OK, what a relief, it is just a dream!). An even more positivistic definition would be that a dream is lucid if in the report of the dream contains a statement equivalent with I am dreaming. So my question is whether a lucid qualifies as 1. being awake or 2. in a dream, or a third state. In lucid dream, we are asleep, and thus not awake (in the usual sense, you might be 'awake' in possible other deep or mystical sense). I suggest that the third state may be in the realm of the afterlife, along with all dreams, Yes, in that more mystical sense, we can be more awake in some dream than when awake at works, for example. except that you may be rational and have choice in a lucid dream, somewhat like salvia. Not sure we can make choice under salvia (depending on the dosage). In fact, with salvia most people lost lucidity, to the point of denying that they have smoked salvia. That is why it is recommended to smoke in the company of a sober person. Salvia can induce super-realist dream at night, which can induce lucidity, though. After an experience salvia, I made the only lucid dream where I was unable to fly, and I attribute it to the salvia gravity effect (an effect which makes you feel infinitely heavy and melting into the ground). The salvia hallucination is or can be very special: it is the hallucination that your entire life was an hallucination, including the fact that you smoked salvia. It is the hallucination that life is an usual, non lucid dream. The experience can be very realistic, making you feeling it more real than what you remember to experience usually in life. It is an hallucination, or perhaps experience, of awakening. If salvia is true, we are not lucid in the everyday life, and we are lucid under salvia. if salvia is false, the contrary is possible (but still doubtful if we assume computationalism, I think). Bruno Richard On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Roger, and people, On 05 Sep 2013, at 00:32, Roger Clough wrote: Kant's disproof of materialism and empiricism Materialists argue that in essence we are no more than our bodies. Empiricists such as Hume ruled out the possible influence of anything transcendental in our perception of objects. But that position was disproven by Kant, for example in his transcdendent deduction of the role of the self in perception http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental/ in which cognitive science and philosophers such as Dennett and Chalmers seems to have overlooked the critical importance of the transcendental. As a result, Kant gave this argument against materialism and empiricism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant Kant proposed a Copernican Revolution-in-reverse, saying that: Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects [materialism and positivism] but ... let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition[transcendental idealism]. The mechanist hypothesis, and the usual Occam razor go farer: the physical reality becomes derivable from the theology of numbers (itself entirely derived from addition + multiplication + Church thesis + some common analytical definition of belief and knowledge). Kant is very good. No doubt. But we have progressed, and from that perspective we are closer to Plato and Plotinus, and all those who does not oppose mystic and rationalism. But now we have a math problem: to derive explicitly the physical laws from a precise theory of number dreams. Physical realties are stable computational sharable dreams. That sharability gives the first person plural points of view. With mechanism or computationalism, you have to add something magical in the mind to attach it to some magical primitive matter. Kant has gone far, but assuming computationalism, there is not much choice than going much farer, as farer as Plato of the Parmenides, or Plotinus or Proclus theology. Then computationalism gives the tools, indeed theoretical computer science, to make this into an experimentally testable theory. Up to now, it fits. Kant is right: the why and how of the physical laws emerge from the laws of cognition, which follows from comp + computer science and logic, so we can indeed test such idea. Some people are unable to doubt this *primitive* matter (in need of Einstein conscious act of
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Yeah. Mach was the big physicist and thermodynamicist, Mach's Principle. All I am saying that often in public discourses' I will see physicists, very hard case ones. delve into logical possitivism. They may also enjoy frosted flakes, as well, but the do the LP dance sometimes. But, what of it? It's simply my experience of these chats. I do really like it when philosophers do go deep into the sciences though. It clicks for me. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Do they deny the existence of electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms. Brent On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have experienced. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking. If by physicalism you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism. Positivism hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach. Too many unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6645 - Release Date: 09/07/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that [...] Speaking of things that give philosophy a bad name consider these words of wisdom from Feyerabend: The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism. No doubt there are those on this list who will try to make excuses for the above moronic statement, but the fact remains that most professional philosophers think any provocative statement can make them stand out no matter how dimwitted it is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Agreed. This was the same bunch of people that burned Giordono Bruno back a few hundred years ago. They weren't concerned with being faithful to reason, but they were faithful to making sure people viewed them as infaliable. Kept the cash flowing in, as well as supressed disturbing data about the world. But, by extension, should we not condemm Heisenberg for running the nazis, A-bomb program. Here is, perhaps, the most brilliant physicist, of the 20th century (I put Hugh Everett higher) and here he goes working for old adolf. There are plenty of stones to cast, its target rich. Mitch -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Sep 8, 2013 12:58 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that [...] Speaking of things that give philosophy a bad name consider these words of wisdom from Feyerabend: The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism. No doubt there are those on this list who will try to make excuses for the above moronic statement, but the fact remains that most professional philosophers think any provocative statement can make them stand out no matter how dimwitted it is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 07 Sep 2013, at 06:06, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I forget his name. Understandable, philosophers are not very memorable. And no philosopher invented falsifiability, some just made a big deal about something rather obvious that had already been in use by scientists for centuries; although way back then they were called Natural Philosophers, a term I wish we still used. Kark Popper! That's it! There is not a scientist alive that learned to do science by reading Karl Popper. Popper was just a reporter, he observed how scientists work and described what he saw. And I don't think Popper was exactly a fount of wisdom. In chapter 37 of his 1976 (1976!!) book Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Popper says: Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program. Those are Popper's own words not mine, and this is not something to make Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science in general proud. Finally, two years later in 1978 at the age of 76 and 119 years after the publication of The Origin Of Species, perhaps the greatest scientific book ever written, Popper belatedly said: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation”. Better late than never I guess, he came to the conclusion that this Darwin whippersnapper might be on to something after all in his 1978 (1978!!) lecture Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind. On free will, I simply say that free will is knowing what you love or hate. In a previous post I said a particular set of likes and dislikes that in the English language is called will. Will is not the problem, it's free will that's gibberish. Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events. Free will doesn't seem to mean anything, not one damn thing; but a little thing like not knowing what the hell free will is supposed to be never prevents philosophers passionately arguing if humans have it or not. Apparently the philosophers on this list have decided to first determine if humans have free will or not and only when that question has been entirely settled will they go on and try to figure out what on earth they were talking about. Incompatibilist notion of free-will are inconsistent, but in theory of responsibility, weaker compatibilist notion of free-will exists and are useful, notably to delineate degrees of responsibility in complex human situations. You make the same abuse with the notion of God and with the notion of Free-will. You declare that a notion is nonsensical because you stick on an inconsistent interpretation of it. You keep throwing babies with the bath water. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 08 Sep 2013, at 11:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote: with physicalism i mean a form of reductionism that is ideológical instead of metodological, in the sense that despise anything beyond the laws of physics. Physicalists despise chemistry and biology not to mention other disciplines. Indeed. And that can explain why it is hard for them to even imagine that physics can itself be reduced to another science (like arithmetic/ computer science when assuming computationalism). An scientist can use reductionism in a metodological way, for example, we can use quantum nechanics to better understand some chemical reactions. or we can use brain scanning or cognitive sciences to help in the study of the mind. What is ideológical is to deny or despise anything above your favorite discipline. In this case, it is related to a (not always conscious) dogma, coming from Aristotle metaphysics, and fitting with the natural animal speculation/extrapolation of unicity and existence of itself and its neighborhood. Assuming comp we get the many selves and the many corresponding worlds/realities. The I hides other I's. Bruno 2013/9/7 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking. If by physicalism you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism. Positivism hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach. Too many unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 08 Sep 2013, at 00:52, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have experienced. Who is logical positivist? I only see people believing in some realities, and explaining or trying to explain the appearances and measure with what is. Postivism is dead. The first positivist condemn the microscope and deny microbes. Positivism tries to evacuate metaphysics by using a very strong metaphysical assumption. It is self-defeating. Bruno -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking. If by physicalism you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism. Positivism hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach. Too many unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/8/2013 2:14 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: with physicalism i mean a form of reductionism that is ideológical instead of metodological, in the sense that despise anything beyond the laws of physics. Physicalists despise chemistry and biology not to mention other disciplines. An scientist can use reductionism in a metodological way, for example, we can use quantum nechanics to better understand some chemical reactions. or we can use brain scanning or cognitive sciences to help in the study of the mind. What is ideológical is to deny or despise anything above your favorite discipline. You're just making this stuff up (because you despise physicists?); attributing all petty ideologies to somebody called physicalists without naming and quoting a single one. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: * Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.* I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be concerned in the slightest. Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with their hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a philosopher; and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. People misunderstand Popper here. Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would rather eat ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took this great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of The Origin Of Species to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess philosophers are just slow learners Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in the footsteps of many Darwinists. Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or should he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie. 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, fittest means passing on more genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is less fit. And if philosophers see something circular in that then that is yet another reason philosophy has a bad name. Can't see that ever being falsified. Nearly a century ago J.B.S. Haldane was confronted with a bonehead who said he thought Evolution was not a scientific theory because he was unable to provide a hypothetical way it could be disproved. In response Haldane thundered RABBITS IN THE PRECAMBRIAN !. Secondly, I admire Popper for not just accepting Darwinism by rote. For calling things as he saw them, even if he called it wrong. Good for him I believe sincerity is a hugely overrated virtue, I have more respect for somebody insincerely right than sincerely wrong. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Feyerabend made the best analysis of the endavour of Galileo in his fight for the truth. No other presented the intellectual work of Galileo in his gigantic intelectual dimension that was, more even than the case of Einstenin and Feyerabend presented it as no one before. Having studied and put clear all the reasoning steps of Galileo in relation with their Aristotelian opponents and extracted invaluable lessons for the methodology of science I think that Feyerabend deserve some respect , you idiot. Please abstain from insults and disqualifications unless you have enough knowledge of the case and present your arguments. 2013/9/8 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that [...] Speaking of things that give philosophy a bad name consider these words of wisdom from Feyerabend: The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism. No doubt there are those on this list who will try to make excuses for the above moronic statement, but the fact remains that most professional philosophers think any provocative statement can make them stand out no matter how dimwitted it is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Sent from my iPad On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program. I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be concerned in the slightest. Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with their hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a philosopher; and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. People misunderstand Popper here. Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would rather eat ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took this great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of The Origin Of Species to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess philosophers are just slow learners Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in the footsteps of many Darwinists. Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or should he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie. 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, fittest means passing on more genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is less fit. Darwin knew nothing about genes. And if philosophers see something circular in that then that is yet another reason philosophy has a bad name. Can't see that ever being falsified. Nearly a century ago J.B.S. Haldane was confronted with a bonehead who said he thought Evolution was not a scientific theory because he was unable to provide a hypothetical way it could be disproved. In response Haldane thundered RABBITS IN THE PRECAMBRIAN !. Secondly, I admire Popper for not just accepting Darwinism by rote. For calling things as he saw them, even if he called it wrong. Good for him I believe sincerity is a hugely overrated virtue, I have more respect for somebody insincerely right than sincerely wrong. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:57 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Mach was the big physicist and thermodynamicist, Mach's Principle. Ernst Mach was a big philosopher but he was more of a medium size physicist. He wrote his most important scientific paper in 1887, but the man lived till 1916 and is far far better remembered as a philosopher than a scientist. He spent nearly 30 years on philosophy and in opposing Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity both general and special, and even the atomic theory of matter. He opposed these superb scientific theories for purely philosophical reasons I might add. Yet another reason philosophy has a bad name. The great philosophical discoveries were made by Darwin and Mendel and Watson and Crick and Maxwell and Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg and Feynman and Godel and Turing. None of these people called themselves philosophers and some even expressed contempt for the subject, but they made the great philosophical discoveries of the age nevertheless. Let me issue a challenge to all on this list: Tell me one thing, just one thing, that people who call themselves philosophers have discovered in the last 2 centuries that is deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true that scientists had not discovered long before. John K Clark All I am saying that often in public discourses' I will see physicists, very hard case ones. delve into logical possitivism. They may also enjoy frosted flakes, as well, but the do the LP dance sometimes. But, what of it? It's simply my experience of these chats. I do really like it when philosophers do go deep into the sciences though. It clicks for me. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Do they deny the existence of electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms. Brent On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have experienced. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking. If by physicalism you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism. Positivism hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach. Too many unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6645 - Release Date: 09/07/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You
RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Hi John Nearly a century ago J.B.S. Haldane was confronted with a bonehead who said he thought Evolution was not a scientific theory because he was unable to provide a hypothetical way it could be disproved. In response Haldane thundered RABBITS IN THE PRECAMBRIAN !. It wasn't evolution that Popper thought was metaphysics, it was natural selection and the reason that he thought it untestable was. ... , actually, why bother? I believe sincerity is a hugely overrated virtue, I have more respect for somebody insincerely right than sincerely wrong. That you have a hard on for insincerity comes across loud and clear, John. You needn't point it out. But, here's a question for you, what about people who are insincere and wrong such as yourself ? Does your love of insincerity outweigh your contempt for error just enough to provide a morsel of self respect? Btw. Did you use to post as Major Higgs Boson, or something, on other boards? The perpetual grumpiness and tortuous attempts to be clever really ring a bell for some reason. Obviously there are many grumpy people in the world so I know its a long shot. Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:47:32 -0400 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:57 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Mach was the big physicist and thermodynamicist, Mach's Principle. Ernst Mach was a big philosopher but he was more of a medium size physicist. He wrote his most important scientific paper in 1887, but the man lived till 1916 and is far far better remembered as a philosopher than a scientist. He spent nearly 30 years on philosophy and in opposing Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity both general and special, and even the atomic theory of matter. He opposed these superb scientific theories for purely philosophical reasons I might add. Yet another reason philosophy has a bad name. The great philosophical discoveries were made by Darwin and Mendel and Watson and Crick and Maxwell and Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg and Feynman and Godel and Turing. None of these people called themselves philosophers and some even expressed contempt for the subject, but they made the great philosophical discoveries of the age nevertheless. Let me issue a challenge to all on this list: Tell me one thing, just one thing, that people who call themselves philosophers have discovered in the last 2 centuries that is deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true that scientists had not discovered long before. John K Clark All I am saying that often in public discourses' I will see physicists, very hard case ones. delve into logical possitivism. They may also enjoy frosted flakes, as well, but the do the LP dance sometimes. But, what of it? It's simply my experience of these chats. I do really like it when philosophers do go deep into the sciences though. It clicks for me. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Do they deny the existence of electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms. Brent On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have experienced. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking. If by physicalism you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism. Positivism hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach. Too many unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: Sent from my iPad On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck chris_...@hotmail.com javascript:wrote: * Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.* I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be concerned in the slightest. On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with their hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a philosopher; and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. People misunderstand Popper here. Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would rather eat ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took this great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of The Origin Of Species to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess philosophers are just slow learners Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in the footsteps of many Darwinists. Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or should he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie. 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, fittest means passing on more genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is less fit. Darwin knew nothing about genes. Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of winning genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness is about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about hereditary supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit' genes 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for success through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit. Thanks, Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:04 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: by extension, should we not condemm Heisenberg for running the nazis, A-bomb program. The fact that Heisenberg ran the Nazi A-bomb program indicates that he was no expert in the field of ethics, but it in no way diminishes his claim for being an expert in the field he is most famous for, physics. But philosophy is the field that both Feyerabend and Popper are supposed to be experts in, which makes there philosophical brain farts about Galileo and Darwin unforgivable. Incidentally it is beyond dispute that Heisenberg ran the Nazi A-bomb program very very poorly, some say this was just because of incompetence but others say it was deliberate sabotage, if so then Heisenberg knew something about ethics after all. And I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me one thing that philosophers have discovered in the last 2 centuries that is deep clear precise unexpected and true that scientists or mathematicians had not discovered first. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:10 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote: Did you use to post as Major Higgs Boson, or something, on other boards? Nice name but no. I have made thousands of posts over the years and they have all been under my real name because I am not ashamed of them. Well OK, one time and just one time for reasons I need not go into now I did post under the name Dr. Livingston I Presume. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Hi John I have made thousands of posts over the years and they have all been under my real name because I am not ashamed of them. Perhaps shame went the same way as sincerity, then? ... just kidding. What an amazing record you have there, John. You must be very proud. We should all learn from the fine example you set. All the best. Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:18:56 -0400 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:10 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Did you use to post as Major Higgs Boson, or something, on other boards? Nice name but no. I have made thousands of posts over the years and they have all been under my real name because I am not ashamed of them. Well OK, one time and just one time for reasons I need not go into now I did post under the name Dr. Livingston I Presume. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
