Well, could you give me a hint? Just saying "you are wrong, and I'm not
going to explain why, maybe you will figure it out someday" isn't much of a
response, you have to admit. Moreover, you say here that you do not have
the expertise in philosophy and logic to respond in detail. Why, then, are
you so completely convinced that I am in error? Yes, I'm an undergrad
(2nd/3rd year, to be precise) but that doesn't make me wrong by default...!
>When you take you
>philosophy and logic courses, your professors will explain how your
>philosophical misconceptions are wrong.
I have taken philosophy and logic courses! Of course I get things wrong
sometimes, and I'm sure I'll continue to get things wrong as I progress.
But it's not clear to me that anything I've brought up in my posts is
really particularly contentious. The nature of validity and soundness, for
example, is taught in an intro Critical Thinking course... I can dig up my
old textbooks and give you references, if you like. Just tell me exactly
which area you think I've misconstrued.
If I am committing some fundamental error regarding the nature of
philosophy or logic, then I am not going to settle with "you'll figure it
out someday". I consider these matters very important! I want to know
what errors I am committing, so that I can go about changing my views
accordingly.
>I don't know how you can understand
>why your misconceptions about science are wrong without becoming a
>scientist; you certainly won't believe until some of your philosophical
>misconceptions have been cleared away.
Exactly which misconceptions about science do I have? I *am* taking a
philosophy of science course right now, so if you'll tell me what you mean,
I can certainly check with my prof and see if I've gotten something wrong.
One thing to note, btw, is that I included many arguments in my post which
were explicitly *not* my arguments. That is, in the examples where you
have argued against Rationalism, I have instead just presented the
responses that a *Rationalist* would give you. (I myself, as I have said,
tend to agree that there is no such thing as a non-tautological exercise in
pure reason.)
> I'll just leave you with this.
>There have been four schools of thought that have tried to understand the
>universe: art (storytelling/poetry), religion, philosophy and science.
I'm not necessarily sure that art counts as a means of understanding the
universe, so much as a way for artists to tell us how the universe looks
from their perspective. I'll grant it for the purposes of discussion,
though. As for religion, it can probably be grouped under "philosophy".
>Of
>all of these, the only one that has in fact given us any real understanding
>of the universe is science.
But that's not true. Philosophy has told us a great deal about the
universe, and has the potential to tell us even more. Philosophy, in fact,
is even the basis upon which science has been built! To call science the
only valid means of understanding the universe is to say that our
understanding will never go beyond the empirical and naturalistic. Without
philosophy, we could never inquire into matters of ultimate reality,
ontology, ethics, theology, etc. etc. etc. Are these unimportant issues?
>The reason is because science begins with the
>premise that we should let the universe tell us what it is like.
Correct. But even that premise is ultimately a philosophical one, since it
takes as presuppositional the premise that empirical observation really
*does* tell us what the universe is like. Moreover, it is not as though
philosophy says "we don't care what the universe is like"! The precise
*point* of philosophy is to tell us things about reality. What is your
thinking behind all this? Why would you suspect that *only science*
reaches knowledge through objective means?
>The others
>begin with the premise that there are other sources that can tell us better
>than the universe can what the universe is like.
Not really. Philosophy does not say "our way is better, science is bogus";
they say "science is one way of inquiring about reality; philosophy is
another". You would be hard pressed to find any philosopher who says
philosophy ought to be practiced to the exclusion of science.
>Art uses emotion coupled
>with imagination, religion uses inspiration and faith, and philosophy uses
>reason and logic. Science is unique in that it has managed to combine all
>these into a working methodology,
How does science use emotion or faith? Anyhow, science does not really
combine all the parts of those other disciplines. Science does not
encapsulate philosophy, religion, or art. Science cannot, and does not
presume, to tell us anything about metaphysical, theological, or aesthetic
issues.
>but still assumes that the universe itself
>is the only real source that can tell us what the universe is like.
But empirical inquiry of the scientific sort is not necessarily the only
way to tell what the universe is like. Plus -- this is the big thing --
even the *question* of what kind of inquiry really does tell us about
reality is a *philosophical* question.
>It then
>uses this methodology to study the universe itself, to create theories about
>the universe, then test those theories against the universe. None of the
>other schools do this; they all say that their source is better than the
>universe, so if the universe contradicts their source, the universe must be
>wrong.
*That* is simply an error. None of the disciplines you mention consider
themselves "better than the universe", they just inquire into the universe
in different ways. Moreover, you have not produced anything to support
your assertion here. All you have said about philosophy is this:
"philosophy has often produced results that science contradicts.
Therefore, philosophy is not concerned with facts." Can't you see the
illicit overgeneralization AND question-begging implicit in that? You
generalize from a few cases to all cases, without any apparent warrant; and
you assume that if philosophy and science disagree, philosophy *must* be
wrong. What possible reasoning could you have for this? Whatever you have
in mind, you haven't yet made it explicit, so how can I (or anyone) be
expected to concede your point?
>Science makes no such claim, because the universe itself is their
>source. As such, for all its faults, for all its failings, for all its
>limitations, science has still given us a much better understanding of what
>the universe is like than all the efforts of the other schools combined.
Science could say absolutely nothing about the universe without relying on
its own *philosophical* foundations, for starters. More importantly,
philosophy in its own right tells us a great deal about the universe. For
example, is the universe dualistic or monistic? If the latter, is it
materialistic or idealistic? Do we have free will? What does it mean if
we do or don't? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? From where do
those concepts derive? Is there a God? What are the implications if there
are or aren't? These are all questions of paramount importance for any
thinking person, and they are the exclusive realm of philosophy. To
disregard philosophy as "inferior" or "not concerned with reality", as you
seem to do, is to say "theories about the deterministic processes of the
natural world are the only valid kinds of truths". Do you REALLY think
that? You are a Christian, if memory serves, so how can you *possibly*
think that?
>To
>my way of thinking, that makes science, with its combined methodology, much
>more powerful than any other methodology, including pure reason.
As I have said before, I myself suspect that pure reason cannot give us
truths about reality. But that is a big philosophical debate right in
itself. And if it *is* possible for there to be legitimate exercises in
pure reason, then it would constitute a *very* important way of arriving at
truth. It is certainly not something to be arbitrarily dismissed, as you
have done!
Anyhow, science *is* a very powerful methodology. There is no doubt about
that, and I do not disagree with you there. What I do disagree with is
your apparent view that this somehow makes philosophy a *lesser*
discipline. I think the correct view is to take philosophy and science as
two different means to the same end: the pursuit of truth. The difference
between them is that science is focussed on one kind of truth specifically:
explaining the processes of the natural world. Is that important? Damn
right! But that is not the only important kind of truth, and it is a
methodology which hinges on philosophical foundations. To exclude or
diminish philosophy is to rule out many important kinds of truths
(metaphysical, theological, ethical, etc.) and ultimately to diminish the
meaningfulness of science itself.
>A record
>of successes in the face of all the failures of the opposing schools may not
>be your idea of a convincing argument, but nothing convinces people of the
>rightness of an idea more than success does.
I don't care what convinces people. I care about what is *true*. Isn't
that what is supposed to be important? Neither science or philosophy is
meant to be concerned with scoring debating points off each other. They
are meant to tell us things about the way reality really is. And, in
reality, your arguments thus far have been specious. I'll try to show some
points where I think you have gone wrong here.
1) You suppose from the fact that mere logical validity does not guarantee
truth that philosophy is unconcerned with truth.
2) You assume that if philosophy and science contradict, science is always
correct.
3) You generalize from the failures of certain philosophers to the failure
of philosophy in general.
4) You generalize from Rationalism to philosophy in general, appearing to
think that the failure of exercises in pure reason invalidates all philosophy.
5) You assume that, if philosophy does not always use the scientific
method, philosophy is unconcerned with the way the universe really is.
Now, I want to make really clear that my point here is not to antagonize
you, or belittle science, or anything of the sort. My intention is,
rather, to show you that philosophy is not just some doddering elderly
cousin of science which attempts to replace objectivity with mysticism and
arbitrary supposition. I am trying to show you that philosophy and science
are not to be seen as opponents, but rather complementary ways of gaining
truth, and that neither ought to be practiced to the exclusion of the
other. In brief, I am trying to defend my discipline from what I perceive
to be serious mischaracterizations.
Philosophers are often heard to remark "scientists make lousy
philosophers". I don't really think this is true. I think the problem is
that many scientists don't understand philosophy; and, to be sure, many
philosophers don't understand science. What I think is that this mutual
misunderstanding needs to be remedied, and it is in that spirit that I
consider this issue to be of paramount importance. (In other words, my
intention here is not just to "bust your chops" as it were.)
Regards,
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/