TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- RJT: 1, 21 Credit Semester: 0
Pages (7): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I see. Could you give a one-sentence summary of your metaphysical views? Thanks.

I often worry that the both the subjectivity and narrow perspective of human experience inhibits us from ever understanding what is truly real in any sense other than that which is perceived by our senses.

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills lol, stay in wiscoland, cause you won' get paid shit in chicago. haha

We're hoping to move out to the Pacific Northwest pretty quickly after I graduate, but who knows, it could take a couple years.

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills key word

Yup - But there are TONS of them out there, and they aren't all religious

RJT, you should be the poster-child of the fact that you can still be a pothead and excel in school...I'm sick of people telling me I'm going to be stupid and not be able to make it through college if I smoke weed, jeesh.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceDJ RJT, you should be the poster-child of the fact that you can still be a pothead and excel in school...I'm sick of people telling me I'm going to be stupid and not be able to make it through college if I smoke weed, jeesh.

lol - perhaps, but it has gotten in my way at times when I really needed to be motivated.

In reality, I'm just self medicating/managing a serious anxiety problem. So it works for me maybe moreso than others.

21 credits and djing and cor whoring. Goddamn man.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I could make a pretty strong argument that philosophers are the only true scientists left Well, them and mad scientists. Mad scientists always be keepin' it real.

Nah man I was a philosophy major for two years until I had a moment of clarity and switched to chemistry. For you to say that philosophy is a science hurts me inside very deeply.

quote:

Originally posted by Protege 21 credits and djing and cor whoring. Goddamn man.

heh, and a girlfriend too! although i'm pretty low-maintenance...

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Nah man I was a philosophy major for two years until I had a moment of clarity and switched to chemistry. For you to say that philosophy is a science hurts me inside very deeply.

Philosophy is more a science than modern chemistry is.

It's intellectually pure, in stark opposition to the suspicious motivations behind modern chemistry

So you're saying that since we build bombs for the government to drop on Iraqi children that we're bad? Pfft.

But seriously philosophy is like science except without absolutely no experimentation which makes it not science at all. Just a bunch of old farts sitting around bullshitting each other.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild So you're saying that since we build bombs for the government to drop on Iraqi children that we're bad? Pfft.

Not in the least. What I am saying, however, is that modern chemistry suffers from the problem of funding - The money necessary to take part in cutting edge chemistry comes on the heels of different motivations, some of which may be seen as highly dubious depending on your perspective. My hypothesis is simply that when science isn't practiced for the sake of "knowing," it becomes something other than "pure" science.

Also please note that I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing in the modern world - With the technologies we have that are capable of destroying mankind, the uncensored practice of science would most likely have devesatating ramifications for human society.

Also, insofar as your assertion that Philosophy isn't a science because it doesn't have any experimentation, I'd most certainly disagree. First, the idea that science requires strict experimentation is a figment of the illusion that is how science is taught in much of the western world; Simply that "science" cannot be practiced without the scientific method. Unfortunately, if this is how you define science, then you're also excluding psychology, sociologoy, much of geology, and archaeology as sciences - Which doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable proposition (however I'm well aware of the difference in opinion on the matter).

I will concede to you, however, that "thought experiments" and debate are pehaps not viewed by the majority of the world as at all scientific, however if you look at the way philosophers reason and ration out many of the problems they tackle, striking paralells can be drawn to how "science" is practiced, even withint he scientific method.

I assume hes using the literal definition of science:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.


as opposed to Science being the "Scientific Method"

scientific method
�noun a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Also, science is usually considered to be falsifiable, and a logic construct, while ridiculous, can be a proof.

If youve ever read a book talking about religion using the 4 pillars of philosophy used by some dude in the 18th century and the author was using those pillars because they prove each other this way....bla bla bla...

I am assuming RJT is being technically correct, which is a philosophy major's favorite kind of correct

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Not in the least. What I am saying, however, is that modern chemistry suffers from the problem of funding - The money necessary to

jinx

The problem with textbook definitions of science is that they are rarely universally agreed upon as correct.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT The problem with textbook definitions of science is that they are rarely universally agreed upon as correct.

thats why i used the dictionary, its the common agreement book

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax thats why i used the dictionary, its the common agreement book

Ever notice how often dictionaries are revised?

It is true science did spawn out of philosophy. And you're right about the funding thing. Which is why we build bombs. But not all of us do for example I work in a lab purifying protein factors and the other half of the lab works on a cure for muscular dystrophy. That isn't so bad is it?

I see what you mean because I personally don't include sociology and psychology as sciences because they aren't. Archeology is more of a history type thing I would say not a science.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Ever notice how often dictionaries are revised?

haha now is that because language grows or because we no longer know what the definition of is is

quote:

Originally posted by Zild It is true science did spawn out of philosophy. And you're right about the funding thing. Which is why we build bombs. But not all of us do for example I work in a lab purifying protein factors and the other half of the lab works on a cure for muscular dystrophy. That isn't so bad is it?

Certainly not, I'd even go so far as to say it's a virtuous activity!

The problem is still one of state funding - In a philosophical sense, science is typically defined as having:

1. No divine explanation

2. Noticeable regularities in observations; General Laws

3. No public support; Privately Funded; Personal Affair

4. Active argument and defense of views with reasonable support.

5. It is a self conciously theoretical inquiy into nature.

6. Critical investigation for empirical support.

I'm sure you can see how what you're doing would not be considered science in the viewpoint I'm positing. I'm not saying this is right either, I'm just putting it forth as a possible definition of science.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I see what you mean because I personally don't include sociology and psychology as sciences because they aren't. Archeology is more of a history type thing I would say not a science.

Which is a view shared by many, many people in the academic community. There is general little agreement on this issue between the so called "soft sciences" and the "hard sciences" steeped in completely empirical pursuits in science.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax haha now is that because language grows or because we no longer know what the definition of is is

It's because the definition of words change over periods of time.

A prime example would be the words "Gay" and "Fag."

see thats why I got out of philosophy. I'm trying to talk about real things not proper definitions and constructs, etc... I know about all that personally I believe we're living in a dream well actually a dream within a dream, but thats another story. I just don't agree that philosophy is the only pure science simply because it isn't even science it is philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild see thats why I got out of philosophy. I'm trying to talk about real things and proper definitions and constructs, etc... I know about all that personally I believe we're living in a dream well actually a dream within a dream, but thats another story. I just don't agree that philosophy is the only pure science simply because it isn't even science it is philosophy.

Do you mean now? Because science would not exist without philosophy - The first philosophers WERE the first scientists. How familiar are you with the likes of Thales and the other presocratics?

Edit: And nothing I posted isn't "real," it's simply not your perception of how things are.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT It's because the definition of words change over periods of time. A prime example would be the words "Gay" and "Fag."

Im glad to have a language that has a magical book that updates itself as the language changes, personally

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Philosophy is more a science than modern chemistry is. It's intellectually pure, in stark opposition to the suspicious motivations behind modern chemistry

you're not suggesting that chemistry itself has suspicious motivations, are you?

assuming you aren't, suggesting that philosophers' motivations are purer than those of chemists is too broad a generalization, to say the least.

edit: i clicked 'quote' about 40 minutes ago, if what i'm stating has already been stated since, this reply will be deleted.

Congratulations and such, Rob.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you're not suggesting that chemistry itself has suspicious motivations, are you? assuming you aren't, suggesting that philosophers' motivations are purer than those of chemists is too broad a generalization, to say the least.

Certainly not! Read my follow up post

Comparing institutional motivation to personal motivation is an entirely different story.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.