Philosophy is literally the reason we have science in the first place.

There have been and there will continue to be huge practical benefits from philosophical discussion of the implications of current and prospective technologies.

People who dismiss philosophy as useless are just naive.

For the record I agree that majoring in philosophy is generally a waste of time. That doesn't make thinking a waste of time.


As well-stated by David Pearce:

"I know a lot of scientists as well as laymen are scornful of philosophy - perhaps understandably so. Reading academic philosophy journals often makes my heart sink too. But without exception, we all share philosophical background assumptions and presuppositions. The penalty of not doing philosophy isn't to transcend it, but simply to give bad philosophical arguments a free pass."

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 7 2014 06:09pm

thinking isn't a waste of time

thinking about stupid pointless questions is however which is pretty much what most fields of philosophy are about

ethics is the only useful field of any practical value within philosophy today
study of knowledge gave us science most recently and nothing new since
discussion on existence/conciousness has always been pointless and unproductive

This post was edited by duffman316 on Oct 7 2014 06:37pm

I disagree about discussion on existence. I think it is extremely productive, especially where meaning in a nihilistic universe is concerned.

a nihilistic universe is a problem because?

This shows you don't know to much about the history of science. You mentioned Lawrence Krauss's book "A universe from nothing" but you obviously haven't read it based on that statement alone. I suggest you give it a read you'll learn a lot. He pretty much throws in all of modern cosmology as well as some good background info as well which makes it a really interesting book.

This post was edited by dark-soul on Oct 7 2014 09:48pm

Well, thor hasn't solidified his statement that I'm wrong, because it's "hard to dig up" (if I am indeed shown to be incorrect then I will admit it, although even his argument against Einstein being single-handedly revolutionary is that someone else had a similar theory that wasn't even close to correct). I'm pretty sure Einstein did indeed revolutionize physics and isn't just a famous name.

I haven't read the book in its entirety, but I've seen the lecture, but I don't have the physics expertise to back up my skepticism, so I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the scientific consensus.

His a priori philosophical assumption that dark matter is a result of undiscovered particles is hilariously ironic.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 8 2014 01:29am

Oh yeah, and I love how "philosophy is stupid" Lawrence Krauss repeatedly cites Occam's razor as a defense for his beliefs.

Pretty sure he never said 'philosophy is stupid'.

KEYWORD: IMPLICATION

Because human beings are constantly searching for meaning. Searching for meaning in a meaningless universe is problematic if you care about avoiding despair.



From William of Ockham, theologian?

Lol, that is pretty good. The funniest thing is Ockham was more of an irrationalist than anything. He was opposite of Aquinas in thinking that the human mind can know god and reality. He was also a nominalist, which is an interesting viewpoint.



He says it hasn't progressed in two thousand years and then defends his arguments with a philosophical argument much younger than two thousand years old. I dunno, it is kind of funny.

To me it is like when the psychological and psychiatric communities talk about how Freud has been mostly discredited but then use his framework and terminology in their diagnoses and practices.

"Freud has been discredited, and you're displacing your anger". Lol.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 8 2014 05:33am