In my experience they’re not mutually exclusve. Philosphers and crackpots I mean.
1 Like
Yes that’s a very self-defeating affectation they consistently demonstrate.
Someone made the point that if you don’t have enough of a command of a subject to be able to explain it in simple terms a three year old can understand, then you don’t understand it well yourself.
Every field tends to have its own jargon so that people can signal their insider status and exclude outsiders, but I have never seen a more deliberately unapproachable field of inquiry than philosophy. Even theologians do better in this regard than philosophers, which is probably half the reason for their success.
Lack of rigour can be hidden behind a wall of verbosity, making it difficult to determine whether the verbosity is necessary for precision or if it’s just faff.
3 Likes
Well, (speaking for myself) it is impossible to debate with someone who is leagues more intelligent than you are.
except as the article highlights, academic papers in scientific fields have done so, and when they have done so, they haven’t been clear as to which form they are using, as per:
“As has by now been extensively documented (see Gelfert [2019] for an overview), scientists often consider possibility in their work, and arguably both epistemic and objective modalities are relevant to science”
You say that science doesn’t make possibility claims, but this is disproved by the example given in the link (Eschenmoser 1999), which I have located as:
Chemical etiology of nucleic acid structure*
Which references possibility in different ways, including directly as:
“Chemical etiology of nucleic acid structure refers to systematic experimental studies aimed at narrowing the diversity of possible answers to the question of why nature chose the structure type of ribofuranosyl nucleic acids, rather than some other family of molecular structures, as the molecular basis of life’s
genetic system.”
Also, just looking through scientific articles generally, I came across other examples that prove science makes possibility claims:
“An analysis of chemical reactor stability and control—I: The possibility of local control, with perfect or imperfect control mechanisms” (1958)
“Coronal outflow dominated accretion discs: a new possibility for low-luminosity black holes?” (2002)
“The possibility of nitrogen isotopic fractionation in interstellar clouds” (2000)
" Theoretical description of the kinetics of solute adsorption at heterogeneous solid/solution interfaces: On the possibility of distinguishing between the diffusional and the surface reaction kinetics models" (2007)
So that’s four examples from a basic search that even include “possibility” in the title, showing how the possibility claim is actually key to the articles.
Again, you have attempted to rebut my points without providing any support.
Claiming the whole field of the philosophy of science is “trash” is illogical too. Science is a form of philosophy. Philosophy literally means a love of knowledge. Science depends on the philosophy of science - the scientific method comes under the philosophy of science. It is what gives science structure - the framework that ensures science is scientific.
Can you provide any science-based sources that rebut the field of the philosophy of science?
I understand that some subfields of philosophy can be insular with niche technical jargon and writing styles that obfuscate meaning, but I do think it is unfair to criticise all philosophy under this label.
The article I linked is one example - even with it being a bit technical, which is understandable for an academic paper, I would say it is just as understandable as many “easily-understood” scientific articles. Whichever field an academic article is written for, it will have a certain professional standard, but philosophy in general is - in a basic sense - a discussion of viewpoints using knowledge, logic, etc.
The discussions in this forum are largely philosophical in nature. This thread in particular, “What is a perfect grasp of all reality?” is a prime example of philosophy - discussions and opposing views using logic and facts to support different arguments with different points upon which agreements and disagreements have occurred.
One doesn’t need to accept all forms of philosophy, or understand any of the field-specific terminology, or resort to obfuscated verbosity to engage in philosophy. Simply engage in discussion with reasoned and logical arguments.
An objective possibility exists independently of human knowledge. In science and philosophy, objective possibilities are claims about the world itself, rather than our current state of knowledge about it. It is distinct from epistemic possibility, which is concerned with what is possible given a certain body of evidence.
When we say a shark has fins, and an elephant has a trunk, these are objective facts about extant species, when we say a unicorn has 4 legs and horn on its head, we are simply describing imaginary things.
It is epistemically possible that unicorns exist somewhere else in the universe, it is objectively and nomologically possible that elephants and sharks exist somewhere else in the universe.
@fireflies, please describe what you consider to be philosophy.
When we say a unicorn has 4 legs and a horn on its head, these are objective facts about a creature that at present is viewed as mythological. Legs and a horn are not imaginary things. A unicorn may not exist outside the imagination (at least not on this world as far as we know), but that doesn’t mean objective facts can’t apply.
Superman is from Krypton and is harmed by Kryptonite. Those are objective facts about a fictional character. The fact that Superman is a fictional character does not undermine the facts about him being objective facts.
A unicorn may possibly exist somewhere in the universe, if one defines a unicorn as a horse-like creature with a single horn on its head. It doesn’t matter if we consider it imaginary on this world.
One might also say that flying saucers are imaginary, but they also could exist somewhere in the universe. Something being considered imaginary doesn’t make it exclusively imaginary. It doesn’t mean that if contact with alien species does occur, and it turns out some species have flying saucer like craft, that those flying saucer crafts are not the same as the ones considered imaginary when seen in the skies.
The dictionary would define philosophy as:
" 1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."
Which essentially covers it. Philosophy is an investigation - this can be an article, or it can be a discussion on a forum like this. What we’re doing now is engaging in philosophy - just by discussing what philosophy is.
As long as it meets the criteria:
- rational - logical, reasoned, constructive / critical
- Investigation - discussion, debate, articles, speech, communication with a view to acquiring or disseminating knowledge/ideas/etc.
- Truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct - this covers pretty much everything.
Philosophy also serves to challenge and critique assumptions, concepts, ideas, etc. More than just finding answers, it questions the assumptions behind the questions themselves. It’s foundational to other fields, and it is also self-reflective.
More can be said in-depth about philosophy, but this covers the general term.
Hypothesising about imaginary things is just imagination. It doesn’t matter how well you define imaginary creatures such as unicorns, leprechauns, mermaids, centaurs, basilisks, or hydras, they will still be imaginary. Rather, what you call objective facts about these creatures is actually commonly accepted attributes. It is, however, an objective fact that these attributes (noun sense 1) are attributed (verb sense 2a) to them. As time goes on, these attributes will change. The imaginary beings trolls do not necessarily have the same attributes today as the trolls people imagined a few hundred years ago. Thus, your “objective facts” change, which hardly make them objective facts.
Edit: grammar fixes
1 Like
I’m not getting roped into this nonsense by you. Don’t send me crap like that again. I’m not interested.
Woah. It’s okay. You challenged me, I provided a response. If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine. Not a problem. I’m not trying to push anything. I was just engaging in a discussion but that’s fine. No big deal.
I did not challenge you. You have exactly 1 chance to correct this false statement made by you, about me. Before I just block you and never read another word. Don’t blow it.
I can see you’re not happy with what I said. I don’t want to push anything. I’m stepping back from our discussion. I’m not looking to cause upset. My apologies.
well you blew it (you failed to correct your false statement about me). if you change your mind: do what I said, then have someone tell me you did it; because otherwise I’ll never see it. I’m not a staff member here anymore, I don’t have to put up with you lying about me. bye
They are on a unicorn.
These are fictional characteristics of a fictional character. Krypton and Krytonite are not objectively real. Like deities, they “exist” in the imagination, but there is no objective evidence they exist as part of objective reality.
May be possible, exactly it’s epistemically possible, not could exist, which would be objectively possible. May possibly exist is the same as may possibly not exist.
Objective facts are still acceptable within a fictional framework (i.e., frame-work relative objective facts), and I would say they differ from “commonly accepted attributes” as commonly accepted attributes are flexible/adaptable as culture/mythology shifts.
You mention this in your comment also, as per:
Which highlights how commonly accepted attributes are distinguished from (framework-relative) objective facts.
Consider unicorns, an association with rainbows may be a commonly accepted attribute in contemporary culture.
However, with (framework-relative) objective facts, these are unchangeable - if they change, the creature described is no longer the titled entity.
For example, a unicorn is a horse-like creature with a single horn on its head. These are objective facts. If you change either of these two (framework-relative) objective facts, you no longer have a unicorn.
If you say, “instead of a horn, it has antlers”, it’s not a unicorn. If you say, “instead of horse-like, it’s dolphin-like”, it’s a narwhal (sorry, I chose that example on porpoise)
(Framework-relative) objective facts can be constrained within a fictional framework accordingly.
1 Like
No, a unicorn is not a horse-like creature, as it does not exist. It is imagined as a horse-like creature. Thus, it is not an objective fact that a unicorn is a horse-like creature. Had it been an objective fact, I could examine it further, and find that it actually is a horse-like creature. So I did. I duckduckgo-ed “origins of unicorns”, and the first hit was Encyclopaedia Britannica:
unicorn, mythological animal resembling a horse or a goat with a single horn on its forehead.
We see there is disagreement in the definition of a unicorn. Thus, it is not an objective fact that a unicorn is, or even imagined as, a horse-like creature. It could also be a goat-like creature. This highlights the problem of calling attributes of mythological creatures objective facts. Because they aren’t.
Edit: forgot the link
Edit 2: I will concede that it can be an objective fact that unicorns often are described as or imagined as horse-like creatures. But that is not the same as the statement that it is an objective fact that a unicorn is a horse-like creature.
Edit 3:
That means that the term objective fact loses its meaning. By your usage of the term, it means that within the framework of homeopathy, it is an “objective fact” that “like cures like”, when in reality homeopathy fares no better than placebo. Within the framework of of islam, you could say that it is an “objective fact” that the moon split in two, while in reality this is absurd. Both of these are obviously nonsense. Thus, referring to them using the term objective fact makes the term meaningless.
Alright credit where due … props for the humor.