To be fair I highly doubt Occam's Razor was not in use before it was officially named. That's basically what philosophy does now... find names for fallacies in logic and arguments.

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 8 2014 06:19am

At least we know what actual logic is

I've seen so many scientists mistake induction for deduction. I constantly have to check my peers

It is funny, they come to me when they have a real problem. Philosophy gives you a very high threshold for bullshit.

And now it's a dead field. What more is there to learn from philosophy?

What more is there to learn from thinking?

Quite a lot I presume. We have to do something with all that science. What is an Is without an Ought? I like to believe that the professional code(s) of ethics I'm bound by has some sort of importance.

We can stop training people in logic, but we wouldn't get much more done in computer science or linguistics

The only scientists who hate philosophy are ones who are bad at philosophy and don't know any better than to fall into scientism.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 8 2014 06:32am

see, there's your problem

you're looking for meaning where there isn't any

can't understand why this would upset you as i believe it and it doesn't bother me one bit

This post was edited by duffman316 on Oct 8 2014 06:32am

Incorrect, that is not the problem, but it is a good starting point. A better point than believing the material universe conforms to the human mind and not the other way around

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 8 2014 06:34am

not sure why you bring that up as if i believe anything like that

Literally all political discussions are rooted in philosophy. To do away with philosophy would be to do away with government and politics.

Like I said, philosophers are going to become increasingly important (or at least they should) as prospective technologies become being realized. In fact they are already very important. Bioethicists are frequently called upon to inform on issues like embryonic stem cell research and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Now and in the future, philosophers will be called upon to inform on issues like designer babies, machine superintelligence, self-replicating nano-robots, biological nano-warfare, technological warfare, etc.

If you don't believe me, see that the most comprehensive treatise on superintelligence was written by a philosopher: http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/0199678111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412784259&sr=8-1&keywords=superintelligence

Most scientists and engineers are interested in progress alone (there are exceptions), so we need philosophers to see where we need to be careful as technology is extremely likely to wipe out civilization.


I think the issue is that people see philosophy as some sort of discrete academic discipline when every human has philosophical presupposition and most think philosophically every day. Don't even have to call it philosophy if you don't want, all it is is thinking about anything that we haven't already figured out.

mt

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 8 2014 10:34am

I'm not saying 'do away with philosophy'. I'm saying it hasn't advanced. People make the same arguments constantly - wrapped in different clothes and if they become popular they may get a name.