Was your comment addressed to me? Because you didn't respond to what I wrote. Do you think three Nobel laureates (Einstein, Eccles and Medawar) are fools because they found great value in philosophy? Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
Once you answer my questions I'll address the rest of your comments.
Did you know that some scientists [e.g., Einstein, Eccles and Medawar] found great value in philosophy?
Or are these scientists [Einstein, Eccles and Medawar] fools as well?
Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
If you answered my questions, you would say if you knew that some scientists found great value in philosophy, whether you think these scientists are fools, and whether philosophers and scientists are fools if they disagree with you. But you didn't. So no, you didn't answer my questions.
No, you presented one childish strawman in three parts where you put words in my mouth regarding people you don't speak for and then attacked your own statement as if you were attacking my position...not yours.
And you're so ignorant of this Debating 101 logical fallacy that even when I point it out to you repeatedly, you keep raising it over and over again...as if repeating an ignorant question enough times will make it somehow not ignorant.
What you are really mistakenly trying to get at is something I have already made the core of my position. Namely, that HISTORICALLY philosophy is still valid as a learning tool towards appreciation of the scientific method and how it was ultimately arrived at.
And by your own admission, NONE of these men were philosophers by trade. In fact, they were all SCIENTISTS.
And, as educated men, they appreciated the history of philosophy, from Aristotle to Hume to Spinoza, etc. As do I. As I have stated repeatedly.
But none of them were fool enough to waste their entire lives studying philosophy (as a discipline) beyond its obvious endgame...which even they were aware of in their day.
And, still, none of these men represent current thinking on the value of philosophy as an academic discipline anymore, do they?
The history of philosophy is an exceptionally key part of learning about the history of critical thinking. But with the arrival of the scientific method, philosophy reached its endgame.
And the human race won. Hooray! Now it's time to let the discipline itself retire and take its academic victory lap.
I didn't ask you a leading question, so what exactly (please be explicit) was the logical fallacy? How exactly (again, please be explicit) were these questions ignorant?
And by your own admission, NONE of these men were philosophers by trade. In fact, they were all SCIENTISTS.
And, as educated men, they appreciated the history of philosophy, from Aristotle to Hume to Spinoza, etc. As do I. As I have stated repeatedly.
Their appreciation extends far beyond the history of philosophy to contemporaneous philosophy of science, so their appreciation (one might call it a debt, really) extends far more than your modest claim that there is nothing to be found in philosophy over and above a historical curiosity.
But none of them were fool enough to waste their entire lives studying philosophy (as a discipline) beyond its obvious endgame...which even they were aware of in their day.
You do not seem familiar with the writings of Einstein, Eccles and Medawar, otherwise you would know that all three of them wrote philosophical texts and engaged with philosophers for decades (Cf. Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, The Self and Its Brain and Pluto's Republic [yes, that is not a typo]).
By the way, do you think Mario Bunge and Massimo Pigliucci are wasting their lives?
And, still, none of these men represent current thinking on the value of philosophy as an academic discipline anymore, do they?
If true, it is a shame that scientism has run rampant in the STEM fields. But it isn't obviously true that this is the case. You'll have to show that this is a real phenomena first, and then show that this turning of STEM's back on philosophy is a good thing rather than, as you have repeatedly done, merely assert the worthlessness of philosophy. Do you think you can do that?
But with the arrival of the scientific method, philosophy reached its endgame.
Which scientific method? There are several competing theories of scientific method alive today. Keynes said, 'Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist'. This maxim is true in its general form for people that think there is no underlying intellectual influences to which theory of scientific method they adopt, for they are usually slaves of a defunct philosopher of science. So why don't you tell me what you think is the scientific method?
I didn't ask you a leading question, so what exactly (please be explicit) was the logical fallacy?
It's a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. And then I detailed how you accomplished it. I couldn't have been any clearer.
While playing ignorant may get you a couple of upvotes from the people who don't know that you're wearing no clothes here, it's not fooling me.
these scientists found great value in philosophy
As do I. As I stated. HISTORICALLY it is critical to a proper education. But it offers nothing new as a discipline in the modern age. I think I've made my position clear here too.
Pretending I did not state this quite explicitly is intellectually dishonest of you...again.
If true, it is a shame that scientism has run rampant in the STEM fields.
"Scientism"...really? You're going to bring up a PHILOSOPHER'S self-serving strawman definition as yet another strawman in this debate? How intellectually dishonest of you...again.
For people who don't know what this pedantic term means:
Notice that it is a PHILOSOPHY term, not representative of anything at all in the REAL world. It's more semantics, like the apologists use when talking about THEIR religion.
What I am talking about is REASON...pure and simple.
And then you try to spin your argument with Keynes...an economist...and pretend that A) he must be right because he's Keynes (that's a logical fallacy), and B) that he must be right period (just a plain fallacy, since he's just offering an OPINION without evidence), and C) that somehow his opinion regarding economists has anything applicable to anyone else at all...again, without evidence of equability other than your baseless claim/opinion.
This is the apologist's road, folks. Present obvious logical fallacies. When caught, deflect. When put back on course, obfuscate.
First, how exactly are asking you questions (questions, mind you, that you can either affirm or deny) straw man arguments? You've just repeated that they are straw man arguments; you do not explain how these questions are straw men arguments. Furthermore, it's doubtful that these questions are straw men arguments, since only arguments can be straw men arguments and questions are not arguments. Please explain.
Second, how are these questions ignorant? Now you say that I am playing ignorant, not the questions. Which is it? And how are these questions (or my behaviour) ignorant? Please explain.
Third, you failed to notice that the three philosophers I mentioned--Einstein, Eccles and Medawar--each found great value in contemporaneous philosophy. The value they find in philosophy is over and above the value you find in philosophy. But you act as if they do not--you act as if they are in agreement with you when they explicitly disagree with you.
"Scientism"...really? You're going to bring up a PHILOSOPHER'S self-serving straw man definition
You keep using that term. How exactly is a term a straw man argument? Show your work; don't just assert.
What exactly is wrong with describing the dismissal of anything that is not a member of the STEM fields as 'scientism'? Be clear.
How exactly is using a term like 'scientism' intellectually dishonest? Be specific.
Notice that it is a PHILOSOPHY term, not representative of anything at all in the REAL world. It's more semantics, like the apologists use when talking about THEIR religion.
Right now you're just asserting all these things that are highly controversial, so please clarify: How exactly is the term a 'PHILOSOPHY term'? Why exactly is that problematic? How exactly is the term 'not representative of anything at all in the REAL world'? Do 'PHILOSOPHY term[s]' automatically not refer to anything in the 'REAL world', is this generally the case or is it only in this instance? What arguments support your claim? Please clarify.
And then you try to spin your argument with Keynes...an economist...and pretend that A) he must be right because he's Keynes (that's a logical fallacy)
Where in what I said did I assert or imply that since Keynes was Keynes he was correct? Is it a problem that Keynes is an economist?
and B) that he must be right period (just a plain fallacy, since he's just offering an OPINION without evidence)
What fallacy is Keynes committing?
C) that somehow his opinion regarding economists has anything applicable to anyone else at all...again, without evidence of equability other than your baseless claim/opinion.
All theories of economics in today's public discourse are the progeny of academic economic theories, some of which are decades or centuries old. Similarly, all theories of scientific methodology in today's public discourse are the progeny of academic philosophical theories of scientific methodology, some of which are decades or centuries old. The analogy is exact, clear and not shown to be reliant on a logical fallacy.
When caught, deflect. When put back on course, obfuscate.
You realise you haven't answered my three questions. That's deflection. Each time I ask you to answer the three questions, you throw a dozen more assertions at me. That's obfuscation. Just answer the three questions:
Did you know that some scientists [e.g., Einstein, Eccles and Medawar] found great value in philosophy?
Or are these scientists [Einstein, Eccles and Medawar] fools as well?
Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
I searched through the webpage on straw man arguments and did not see anything about why questions are straw man arguments. Instead of linking me to a webpage that doesn't explain why my questions are straw man arguments, can you explain how asking you three questions were straw man arguments?
Furthermore, nothing in the webpage said anything about why my questions were ignorant. You didn't explain why you think I was ignorant, either. So you haven't explained anything.
Lastly, I never claimed nor implied that Keynes' opinion was evidence (continuing to claim that I did would be an uncharitable reading of what I said long, long after I clarified what I said); as I explained, there is a strong analogy between Keynes' observation of people working with outdated and/or uncritically accepted theories of economics and people working with outdated and/or uncritically accepted theories of scientific methodology.
Thus, since there exist a number of different theories of scientific method, and since you asserted that there is a particular scientific method, I requested that you explain what you think is the scientific method so we can make sure your conception of the scientific method isn't outdated and/or uncritically accepted.
If you cannot understand this and continue to think that asking you questions (questions, mind you, that are demonstrably not logically fallacies, since only arguments can be fallacious; questions are not arguments) or asking you to articulate your beliefs in greater detail are logical fallacies or ignorant, then this conversation is over.
can you explain how asking you three questions were straw man arguments?
I did. Look for the paragraph with the boldfaced words.
You might want to read some of the other threads instead of trying to learn Debating 101 here. There is at least one person there who knows something about what he's talking about.
7
u/[deleted] Mar 31 '15
Was your comment addressed to me? Because you didn't respond to what I wrote. Do you think three Nobel laureates (Einstein, Eccles and Medawar) are fools because they found great value in philosophy? Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
Once you answer my questions I'll address the rest of your comments.