What philosophy buffs have against Science buffs

[Qfwfq]

It is only in recent century that Philosophy has been widely known to majorly effect the practice of science. Though Scientist, Theologist and Philosophers have been one in the same through out history it has not always been recognized widely that these three fields of study are really one in the same, and that each lends to the other.

Actually, it's the other way around.

 

It's only in the past century or two that the term 'science' has come to be widely used in lieu of 'natural philosophy'. Previously 'science', which just means knowledge, was used to indicate the body of facts that "philosophers" had ascertained. Philosophy means "care of knowledge" i. e. the activity of inquiry, research, argument etc. by which science (knowledge, facts) is gleaned.

[IDMclean]

It's a palindrome. If you flip it, it stays the same. Not literially but metaphorically. It's all in the definition.

 

Though in concept you are correct. What is has always been.

[Kriminal99]

Thank you, Chacmool! Yes! I agree. I have read almost everything Daniel C. Dennett has written. He holds the Philosophy Chair at Tufts University and is THE preeminent philosopher in American today. Nowhere does he criticize scientists, the scientific method, the history of science, or the society of scientists. Frankly, he is one of science's biggest supporters today.

 

And a damned good writer.

 

Let me start by answering the question of what I mean when I say a person says they believe X but acts as though they do not, where X is the belief that social acceptance is more important than truth.

 

Let me create a model to answer this question better, since I feel as though I have already answered it several times but you do not see what I see. If you still don't understand me after this I can only conclude that you don't want to understand what I am saying.

 

Say you have 3 people that at age 5 have important experiences.

 

Person A sees Socrates the XXIV, a humble old man walk up to a prominent military general in front of a crowd, and asks him to explain the concept of honor. Then when the military general does so, he begins to point out self contradictions in the general's beliefs, and maybe leaves a better understanding of honor in his wake.

 

Person B sees their father, a prominent Scientist recieve some sort of award and recognition for his work as a scientist.

 

Person C was the son of a wealthy buisness man who was impacted by the happenings of social gatherings.

 

These events impact these 3 people greatly.

 

Person A's instinctively believes that truth is the most important source of power or means of achieving happiness.

 

Person B instinctively believes that social recognition is the most important source of power and happiness, and that discovering truth or scientific achievement is a good or best means to obtain that social recognition.

 

Person C instinctively believes that social recognition is the most important source of power and happiness.

 

As children they are enrolled in christian private boarding schools, even though their parents are not devout christians. They both pursue science or some other intellectual discipline. At some point there seems to be some kind of conflict between something A and B are learning and the christian beliefs of their enviornment.

 

Person A pursues understanding of the situation as best as possible, and if it turns out that what he has learned really contradicts what the people around him believes he debates this with conviction to anyone who will listen. He angers many people who do not wish to hear what he has to say and is kicked out of the school.

 

Person B looks at the situation and sees that noone in his enviornment would even consider something that contradicts their religous beliefs, and does not pursue understanding of the subject. Perhaps assuming himself to not really understand it, or perhaps just reasoning that even if there is a contradiction noone will recognize it so whats the point? - Person B does this only until such a point as they are surrounded by people with different beliefs, at which time they do the same with regard to their new enviornment perhaps rejecting what he believed in his old enviornment.

 

Person C wonders how Person A is ever going to get laid, and respects person B as the "science guy" even if he does not understand any thing he has accomplished. This is because everyone else respects person B as the "science guy". Person C is not very opinionated, follows christian beliefs and chases after girls alot. When person C leaves the school and enters a

new enviornment he disowns any christian beliefs that are extreme with respect to his new enviornment.

 

Note the above example is chosen to show an enviornment that obviously might conflict with pursuit of knowledge. Truthfully the beliefs and politics of any enviornment potentially has this problem, even if the enviornment is supposed to be set up with the pursuit of knowledge in mind.

 

Next example the 3 people are in a public debate or internet forum.

 

Person A debates endlessly, only becoming angry in response to direct attacks, considers his opponents arguments, admits when he is wrong when it occurs (though it might not often since he spends a large amount of his time thinking about things and imagining the responses of his opponents), follows rules of debate that he believes are necessary for the debate to result in the best understanding of the topic for everyone listening or involved

even if noone but him understands the need for these rules, and finally uses very carefully thought out arguments to try and prove his point. Person A mosts respects those who pursue reason against all adversity and who have the most impact on how those around them think. But if faced with such a person, person A would debate with him as anyone else.

 

Person C in face to face debates often raises his voice above his oppoents in an attempt to appear authoritative with no regard for how this affects the understanding gained from the debate. Person C outright rejects any argument which goes against what most people in person C's enviornment believe. Person C says that Person A "thinks he is some great deductive reasoner or god of logic even though noone has designated him so" or asks person A "Who he thinks he is?" Person C's arguments are rife with logical fallacies, and makes little or no attempt to argue using reason alone. Person C frequently solicits support from others using Person A's disagreement with a common belief to do so.

 

Person B behaves in a way that is in between the Persons A and C. Person B makes well reasoned arguments, but most of these are arguments are things he has read from well known figures or applications of such reasoning as opposed to the out of the blue arguments Person A uses from having sat for days on end just thinking about the subject. Person B refers sometimes to a "well respected" person's opinion of a subject. Person B determines the prominence of a scientist or philosopher (if such even has meaning) by the degree of social recognition he has recieved as opposed to the long term affect he has had on the way people think in cases where these provide different answers. Person B outright rejects anything that goes against beliefs of these "prominent" figures. Person B will resort to fallacies and seeking support when someone does so.

 

By seeking support I mean an attempt to gang up on someone with others as opposed to allowing someone to take their place in a discussion.

 

Person B can only exist after Person A. Person B's arguments look more and more like Person A's as there as more A's breakthrough politics and have their ideas socially recognized. Person B becomes more objective the more diversity of beliefs there are among well recognized figures of that time period.

 

So ask yourself the following questions. Is person B in this model a realistic example of some people? Would such people be capable of being scientists? Are there some B's that are closer to C than A who are capable of being scientists employed/funded by biased organizations?

 

So I guess I should somewhat apologize, because my real issue here is with person B in this model. The only reason person B would be associated with science more than philosophy is because most people don't have a great understanding of philosophy but know that science has a strong social impact. There are still A scientists.

[Pyrotex]

...Let me create a model to answer this question better, since I feel as though I have already answered it several times but you do not see what I see. If you still don't understand me after this I can only conclude that you don't want to understand what I am saying...

I gotta go home now--I will read your post tomorrow.

 

But there is ONE other possibility if we do not see what you see.

 

And that is this: YOU may be unable to express yourself without ambiguity.

 

It happens. I have known people who thought it "cool" to speak in an "elevated" form of speech that avoided specific references and nouns. Everything was "they", "you" (even when speaking about someone else or even themselves!), and "it".

 

I was once married to a woman who had mastered ambiguity like an ART, so that when she debated someone (on any subject) she could drive them to the point of rage with frustration. No matter how hard you (meaning "I") worked to understand her POV, she was always able to prove you ("me") wrong. At first, I thought something was wrong with me. Then I watched her pull this on friends, strangers, co-workers. The really SCARY part was that she was unaware she was doing this. I managed to get her briefly in group therapy. After 4 sessions everyone was ready to kill her. To her, it was obvious that they weren't smart enough to understand her.

 

This is not a flame, Krim. I have REALLY seen this behavior in an ex-wife and several engineers over the years. I don't know what is at the root of it. But there are some people who ARE compulsive about being so vaguely (sophisticatedly) ambiguous that no one can easily follow them. I do know that these folks almost always blame the problem on their listeners.

[Kriminal99]

Well the rest of the post created a model with people being named A, B and C to avoid pronoun problems so take a look. I also edited most of the pronouns out of my back posts.

[Panjandrum]

Person B sees their father, a prominent Scientist recieve some sort of award and recognition for his work as a scientist.

 

Now I understand! Ive met people like you before, who feel slighted that philosphy is not held in as high regard by society as science is, and rather than accept the reason for this (science produces stuff, philosphy merely obfuscates) you prefer to belive it is because the ignorant masses simply believe what they are told, and that it is the sad (but oddly noble) fate of the philosopher to be the lone torch of truth in a hostile and dogmatic world.

 

<removed>

[Pyrotex]

Let me start by answering the question of what I mean when I say a person says they believe X but acts as though they do not, where X is the belief that social acceptance is more important than truth. ...So ask yourself the following questions. Is person B in this model a realistic example of some people? Would such people be capable of being scientists? Are there some B's that are closer to C than A who are capable of being scientists employed/funded by biased organizations? ...my real issue here is with person B in this model. The only reason person B would be associated with science more than philosophy is because most people don't have a great understanding of philosophy but know that science has a strong social impact. There are still A scientists.

Okay, Krim,

I have read your essay with care.

So, you have chosen three kids who are affected by their observations and grow up accordingly. My thumbnail sketches of these three are:

 

Person A is committed to the search for truth, at any personal cost.

Person B recognizes the importance of truth (and its search) but is dominated by a desire to be consistent with others in his environment. He may stick his neck out for truth and risk some disagreement, but not much.

Person C may see truth as useful but is committed to being consistent with others in his environment at any cost.

 

The issue here is Person B. You are not clear as to what this ISSUE is but I conjecture that it is one of integrity. Both Persons A and C are being true to themselves and are willing to pay some price for this.

 

How philosophy ties into this is not at all clear. Your one reference to philosophy is at the end and indicates that a lack of appreciation for science (?) may be due to a lack of understanding of philosophy (?).

 

On the surface, I have no trouble giving tentative agreement to your essay--at least to the extent I understand it. Yes, there are people who claim a commitment to Science (or anything else, for that matter), but who, upon being confronted and challenged, will back down from that commitment and attempt to barter for a "socially accepted" stance. Tepid believers. Wishy-washy warriors.

 

Daniel C. Dennett (who I have mentioned) once said that the problem that philosophers had with scientists was "physics envy"--the ability of scientists to translate ideas into mathematical equations and derivations that were beyond dispute. If ONLY philosophers could do this!

 

Dennett's comeback was to argue that philosopers have something just as strong and venerable as mathematics, and that is historical analysis. Not just applied to "mere history" but as applied to the entire realm of philosophy. Just as an historian may use known historical facts to argue about the motives of King Henry VIII (which cannot be seen), so can philosophers use known facts about the natural world (historical and contemporary) to argue about the reasons for or the liklihood of philosophical conjectures over those realms of human experience that also cannot be seen. Such things as morality, good, evil, beauty, truth, knowledge, conciousness, etc.

 

Some "sciences" such as psychology and sociology depend heavily on historical analysis--perhaps even more than they do on facts and experiments.

 

In my opinion, science and philosophy are well served by each other. People committed to either would do well to study both, though not necessarily in equal measures. Knowing HOW science came about, and understanding that GREAT science can come from severely challenged individuals, such as Hook and Newton, is critical to a critical thinker. Likewise, philosophers would do well to understand that much of their craft over the centuries has been strongly affected by the "models" (paradigms) that science has invented to explain the real world--AND that philosophy has often given birth to sciences.

 

The Person B you spoke of, and painted as a rather "weak" person is not a manifestation of any discord BETWEEN science and philosophy. He is just one of the 82.7% ( :) ) majority of humans whose emotional need for "belonging" is so overpowering that they cannot stand strong in the face of opposition or rejection. Ever know a guy who had rejection-phobia so badly that he could not ask a girl for her phone number? Well, there's a lot of that going around.

 

Frankly, anyone can fall for a fallacial argument from time to time. Some of them are so persuasive on the surface and require a good deal of inspection before you can see how hollow they are. Sometimes it helps to debate a point with someone who can point out your fallacies. A lot of that goes on here at Hypography.

 

And frankly (and finally) there are a lot of "science buffs" who aspire to being Person A, who would pay any price (if they could) to attain that degree of knowledge and integrity. Perhaps they are on their way, but are only half way up the mountain. Perhaps they never will attain the peaks. But they ASPIRE. They love science and hope for its eventual ascendance over superstition and fear. But they just don't have the firepower to be great debaters. They repeat what they have read, what they think they know, and perhaps not always with perfect recall. For folks like this, losing an argument (seeing beloved science losing out to some fringe pseudo-fact) is a matter to get angry about. They don't have the firepower they wished they had and this frustrates them.

 

Don't be too rough on us Persons B. We do the best we can. We aren't perfect. And some of us, one day, may break free of our cocoons and become glorious, incandescent Persons A (like Carl Sagan).

 

Okay, Krim, have I gotten close to answering your question, or have I missed the entire target?

[Chacmool]

Awesome post, Pyrotex! I still don't see where the idea of opposition between science and philosophy comes from. The two disciplines were both held in great regard by the ancient Greeks - arguably one of the greatest civilisations ever. And rightly so because, to quote Pyrotex: "Science and philosophy are well served by each other."

[Pyrotex]

Actually, Science deals with the "How" and Philosophy deals with "What" and "Why". Pyrotex made an excellent post!

Thanks, Raccy and Chac. :doh:

 

Raccy, you KNOW how much I hate disagreeing with you :) but I see Science and Philosophy a little differently. Science deals with the How, the What and the Why as they exist and occur "out there" in a universe as machine. Philosophy deals with the How, the What and Why as they exist and occur "in here" in a universe constructed within our minds; a universe that is in constant interplay with human needs, emotions, desires, aspirations. Science tells us that matter can be turned into energy; philosophy tells us why we should be very very careful in doing so.

[Qfwfq]

Panjandrum, I removed the unnecessary remark from that post.

 

science produces stuff, philosphy merely obfuscates

Philosophy does not obfuscate things, or at least not good philosophy, if bad philosophy does this doesn't mean that such is the aim of philosophy in general.

 

you prefer to belive it is because the ignorant masses simply believe what they are told, and that it is the sad (but oddly noble) fate of the philosopher to be the lone torch of truth in a hostile and dogmatic world.

This isn't the problem, many people simply find it easier to appreciate the facts, rather than the laborious process by which these are usually arrived at. While science has become somewhat separated from philosophy in the past century or two, increasingly focussing on practical matters, philosophy remains more on the analytical and contemplative side. The very use of the term 'science' in place of 'natural philosophy' is very much a sign of this.

[Qfwfq]

Quite a post, Pyro! :circle:

 

Daniel C. Dennett (who I have mentioned) once said that the problem that philosophers had with scientists was "physics envy"--the ability of scientists to translate ideas into mathematical equations and derivations that were beyond dispute. If ONLY philosophers could do this!

Actually, many philosophers do use math.

 

Knowing HOW science came about, and understanding that GREAT science can come from severely challenged individuals, such as Hook and Newton, is critical to a critical thinker.

I've always read quite the opposite of Newton having been "severely challenged". In fact he was quite widely acclaimed a not only after writing the Principia, but even wrote that book because so many others persuaded him to get his ideas into a book. For a natural philosopher of those times, he was exceptionally unchallenged.

 

Especially since Einstein, the community of the intervening times has been much accused of succumbing to Newton. Indeed there were some that excessively considered his work self-evident and indisputable, although that is an especially subtle matter, far more subtle than many of they think, who point there fingers at how the indisputability "crumbled". IMV this is a plain matter of being coarse and simplicistic.

 

Likewise, philosophers would do well to understand that much of their craft over the centuries has been strongly affected by the "models" (paradigms) that science has invented to explain the real world--AND that philosophy has often given birth to sciences.

True philosophers know the ties between science and philosophy better than some scientists do. There are certainly scientists with an antipathy toward philosophy but this is a situation come to be, in modern times.

 

I, personally, as one that always studied "more science than philosophy" and graduated in physics, have always been more of a person A and especially in the university environment where I studied physics, with people doing physics and other scientific topics. I have been mutilated by the past years of working for crummy companies, usually doing very crummy follow-the-rules-and-shut-up type of stuff in subordinate positions. I have even been put in subordination to "tough" types, deliberately by a quite brutal boss to clamp down the A in me and he afterwards bullied me for having told the project leader that I couldn't complete a simple task until a trivial mistake was corrected in another part of the project. I'm very weary of this type of thing, and where is it that I let the A out? Here at Hypography!

[Pyrotex]

...I've always read quite the opposite of Newton having been "severely challenged". In fact he was quite widely acclaimed a not only after writing the Principia, but even wrote that book because so many others persuaded him to get his ideas into a book. For a natural philosopher of those times, he was exceptionally unchallenged....!

My knowledge comes from several TV documentaries and the book, "Let There Be Light". There was also a book of short biographies of the first 50 members of the Royal Society. Needless to say, they could have been slanted in their description of dear Isaac.

 

He was painted as a very shy, withdrawn person, overly sensitive to criticism, and uncomfortable in many social settings. At Oxford College, he did not join any student clubs, preferring instead to keep a detailed diary of his sins. It was principally Edmund Halley (of cometary fame) who persuaded him to publish the Principia, and who collected the money for the first edition. When Hook, I believe, published a letter claimed to have discovered one of Newton's conclusions, implying that Newton had gotten it from Hook, Newton's reaction was described as nothing short of berzerk rage. He threatened to buy back all the Principias and burn them--but was probably talked out of this by Halley, one of his few "friends".

 

Yes, Newton was acclaimed very widely, especially in France(!). Glorious books, poems and sculptures were done in his honor. But this by people who had never actually met him.

 

I certainly do not wish to suggest that Newton was intellectually challenged in any way. But socially and emotionally, he certainly was no Humphrey Bogart.

[Kriminal99]

Now I understand! Ive met people like you before, who feel slighted that philosphy is not held in as high regard by society as science is, and rather than accept the reason for this (science produces stuff, philosphy merely obfuscates) you prefer to belive it is because the ignorant masses simply believe what they are told, and that it is the sad (but oddly noble) fate of the philosopher to be the lone torch of truth in a hostile and dogmatic world.

 

<removed>

 

I disagree. Philosophy has a huge impact on the world besides being responsible for the creation of things like the scientific method. Many people's behavior is driven by their religion which is closely tied to philosophy. Laws and ideas on ethics and morality drives governments. People's beliefs drive their everyday behavior and affects things like the crime rate the economics of the world etc. Finally even when you look at a system like the scientific method you might see that people who have a better understanding of how the scientific method came to be, what its benefits and limitations are etc are better able to use the tools it provides.

 

Okay, Krim,

 

Okay, Krim, have I gotten close to answering your question, or have I missed the entire target?

 

 

Well...

 

Personally I believe that philosophy is capable of producing claims based on reasoning as solid as mathematics, and the model of the three people was based on a model of human behavior I subscribe to that I believe can be so deduced from the average person's experience of one's self and observation of other people.

 

Anyways, I intended the three persons actions to be driven less consiously then you seem to have interpreted. They are acting more on emotions and instinct that is driven by subconsious inductive reasoning using their past experiences such as the one that impacted them at a young age. The importance of the experience that impacts them at a young age is that it causes them to look for reinforcement of what they learned at that time and dismiss most experiences that point to the contrary. So early experiences have a big impact but it is still inductive reasoning of sorts.

 

The reason I mention this difference is because it results in a slightly different interpretation of the differences between the 3 people. Person A and C are not meant to be extremes where person B is just wishy washy or in the middle, or someone that aspires to be person A.

 

Person A's objectivity might be somewhat exaggerated, but a less objective person A is not a person B in this model - rather it would be some kind of misanthrope. This is because the defining feature of person A is that he has had imprinted on him the power of truth. He submits himself and defends truth in a manner similar to a pack wolf defending and submitting to an alpha. He would think anyone who does not submit to truth a fool and be bitter towards them, except following truth forces one to recognize the limitations of humans and therefore the reason for others behavior. It may be true that respect from others or for important figures only have less meaning for such a person as opposed to no meaning, but there is no conflict between them in a Person A's mind. Truth is the only god. (Don't take that last statement too seriously)

 

Person C is meant just to be close to an average person who has had (what I think might be the most common) the importance of other consious beings being on your side impacted on him. Perhaps an impacting experience they might have is a person being rejected from a group because they behaved differently from the group. Person C believes anyone that acts in any abnormal or antisocial (for the immediately surrounding social setting) manner is a fool and is bitter towards them even if they cannot explain why such a person is a fool. C's have seen the opinions of a group reversed by one person, but this happens when a person who is socially accepted as an authoritative source has done so (Hence the "who do you think you are?" type statements towards person A's). Hence social acceptance is still their only god. Person C's instinctual reasoning is rife with fallacy, but that is not obvious to them because it is not consious reasoning.

 

You might say Person B is somewhere in between, but not in the manner you imply. In this model it isn't that people are constantly sliding on a A C spectrum based on their behavior at the time, but rather that each person has had slightly different experiences that instinctually drive their behavior. Phrases like "had the importance of social acceptance impacted on him" are a poor representation of the functions of past perceptions that I believe are responsible for driving people's behavior. Each person might have slightly different such functions (created from slightly different experiences) that result in subtle differences in behavior even among people who behave similarly for the most part.

 

Person B is meant to be an actual person who has had something less than the importance of truth impacted on them. In the model the person has been impacted by a well respected figure, his father. He might then behave in a way to attempt to become a well respected figure himself. This might mean he has to get straight A's in school or do other things that cause someone to be well respected. The model person B was impacted by an intellectual figure, but if his father was a general or a wealthy buisness man he might could care less about the search for truth. Such people might be capable of great things. But the important attribute of person B in this model is that their behavior is subconsiously biased by something other than the search for truth and yet they are driven to be involved in intellectual pursuits.

 

Each person might be capable of changing their "instincts", but not easily.

 

A person A's instincts could change, but for their current instincts to allow them to recognize any experiences that would cause such a change, it would have to be because the change in instincts better serves the true nature of the world around them. But they already have the best instincts in that regard, so they wouldn't change.

 

A person C's instincts could change, but for their current instincts to allow them to recognize any experiences that would cause such a change it would have to be a socially accepted source of information. For instance most people today have a poor opinion of uneducated people. Perhaps schools are so useful not because they provide information for students to learn but because they place students in a situation where they must learn to be socially accepted. What if an easily understood philosophy of human behavior and interaction were included in the curriculum? This might be enough to turn person B's and C's into A's.

 

Anyways now I am rambling a bit.

[Pyrotex]

I disagree. ...Personally I believe that philosophy is capable of producing claims based on reasoning as solid as mathematics, and the model of the three people was based on a model of human behavior I subscribe to that I believe can be so deduced from the average person's experience of one's self and observation of other people. Anyways, I intended the three persons actions to be driven less consiously then you seem to have interpreted. They are acting more on emotions and instinct that is driven by subconsious inductive reasoning using their past experiences....

Hmmm. I fail to see precisely what you disagree with. Your following text is not at all incompatible with what I said.

 

A model of human behavior. I learned recently, from reading Dennette, that the possession of a model of human behavior, and in particular, the assumption that other people have thoughts and desires; and motives and reasons for them--is called having "the intentional stance".

 

There are folks with severe antisocial disorders who do not have the intentional stance. They never attribute any emotions, feelings or thoughts in other people; their model of human behavior is that others are just "machines" operating on the basis of a set of rules that can be deduced. Such antisocial folks are often clever and very manipulative.

 

However, I (and I assume YOU) do take the intentional stance, attributing human behavior to the same kinds of thoughts, emotions, instincts, passions and impulses that we ourselves have. Now, the MIX of those things is often determined by our prior experiences. So, my intentional stance may have a decidedly different "flavor" than yours; I may think that reason dominates--you may think instinct dominates.

 

Many years ago, I took the Forum seminar series (Put out by Landmark Education--you can google them). After several years of training, I became aware that my initial model of human behavior wasn't very good at understanding others, especially educated, successful, wise others; others at the top of the food chain, so to speak. It was only after I was coached into discovering my early childhood traumas that gave me a lop-sided view of people--and the coaching to disconnect or "decathect" those traumas--that I found myself able to understand (model) those accomplished few, and became capable of becoming one of them.

 

I don't disagree with YOUR model of human behavior, I just believe that it is far too simple and static to be of much use. It accurately reflects a certain subset of humanity, I would say. But a small subset. There are so many folks who do not fit your model, people whose mindsets grow and evolve, becoming ever more complex and attuned to reality, shedding their traumas, realigning their stance, getting their hands eventually on the dials and buttons of their own minds.

[Kriminal99]

I was disagreeing with panj. But I don't see why believing that people act on rules and that their behavior can be deduced is mutually exclusive to believing that other people have feelings and emotions etc. I just think of the emotions driving behavior the same way I think of electric charges driving streams of electrons in a computer

 

My model of the human mind is much more complicated then I have laid out here, these are just the parts (and simplified parts at that) that are relevant to this topic. However I have no difficulty modeling different types of people.

[Pyrotex]

I was disagreeing with panj. But I don't see why believing that people act on rules and that their behavior can be deduced is mutually exclusive to believing that other people have feelings and emotions etc. I just think of the emotions driving behavior the same way I think of electric charges driving streams of electrons in a computer

I did not say that they were mutually exclusive. It is observed (!) that most people 'know' that others have feelings and emotions, and behave accordingly--and that some antisocial and autistic individuals apparantly cannot do this. What they can do, is learn how other humans behave, the way you or I would learn how a bicycle behaves in our attempt to ride it; we do not attribute 'thought' and 'feelings' to the bicycle.

My model of the human mind is much more complicated then I have laid out here...

Okay. well, it wasn't real obvious, and I wanted to clarify that.

[paigetheoracle]

I have had some of my posts attacked for not being scientific, even though they were coming in from a philosophical angle (I won't go into details as the situation then becomes personal and infighting gains nothing but a bad reputation for all involved as reason goes out the window and violent defence replaces it, which to me is the real problem).

 

To me the real question is not what do science buffs have against philosophy buffs but how can we tell when we're being prejudiced against each other? (Violent defence of egoes, generalisations etc.).

 

You can't put philosophy in a lab. As LaurieAG said in another thread, science cannot deal with absolutes and that is all philosophy does, in the main. Like religion, it is involved in the bigger picture and general observation of human functioning as well as reality at a basic level.

 

Let me put the situation like this. We all think of ourselves as an individual whole, whether a society or body but start to analyse things and what you see is that everything is made up of separate parts, working together for the collective good.

 

Anger and hatred are defence mechanisms that push us apart or keep us apart and that is their job. As reactions what they are saying to us is 'Give us space/time to adjust to the changed situation we find ourselves in'. It is a sign of fear at losing our identity and certainty about the world (our place in it). It is trying to hold onto what was, rather than accepting what is (being free and open - stepping forward into the light (the future), rather than backing into the shadows (the past).

 

It's not really science buffs v philosophy buffs, anymore than it's muslims versus christians or democrats versus republicans - it's fear versus courage, ignorance versus awareness, reality versus illusion but that's just the philosophical perspective on it all.:)

 

'Know thyself' versus 'No! thy other'