(03-04-2013, 07:40 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]It's not the red shift, it's the principle. I'm saying you don't need to be educated to be a philosopher, unlike being a scientist (and I certainly don't want to make that sound like a bad thing). The philosopher asks certain questions whereas the scientist answers certain other questions. The former is educating himself, whereas the latter is educating everyone else, and both are important. Both worlds require some observation to an extent, but for different reasons.
Here's a good one: which one doesn't belong: a Ph.D in Philosophy, a Ph.D in Chemisty, a Ph.D in Physics and a large pizza?
A: The Ph.D in philosophy because the other options can feed a family ololololol
Children are the greatest philosophers; they know nothing, but they are constantly asking questions.
Another example I could use is that I can't determine through science whether my red is your red, and at the same time I can't effectively explain and confirm oxidation simply by wondering how fire exists and without conducting sufficient experiments.
fun fact: phlogiston is essentially the opposite of oxidation.
Just look at Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe. It's brilliant and simple (while incorrect), because at the time, technology did not permit to see the galaxy as it is; heliocentric. Ptolemy went with the simplest and therefore more philosophically likely option (can anyone say Occam's razor?) that the galaxy is orbiting the Earth because of how he observed it*, but couldn't verify it. Not even Galileo could effectively verify his heliocentric model, but he did approach it with the scientific method (which is attributed to him) and concluded that Copernicus was right, and he was correct.
*There's also some theology involved; the geocentric model is largely comprised of circles, the "perfect" shape. One reason the Catholic church wasn't a fan of the heliocentric model is because the observed trajectory of asters aren't perfectly round, much to the dismay of theologians of the time.
That is called qualia. There is a very intersting thought experiment around that with RoboMary. Do yourself a favour and go read some of the works of Daniel Dennett.
My last name isn't Dennett. j/k. Yeah, the whole your red, my red is really interesting to me, because it could look like anything, but you've been told its red all your life, so thats red, regardless of what it looks like to you. And I was just giving you shit about red shift. Did you know that PhD actually stands for Doctorate of Philosophy?
Ha, phlogiston. Old science is so funny. Especially because physicists have known stuff for way longer than chemists. Its also crazy to think about the stuff they didn't know, like how they discovered electrons after they could already create precise electric and magnetic fields.
(03-04-2013, 08:19 PM)debbie Wrote: [ -> ]That is called qualia. There is a very intersting thought experiment around that with RoboMary. Do yourself a favour and go read some of the works of Daniel Dennett.
I have made a search for it, and I must say.
Damn, these are confusing words.
Again, though, it's not the example, it's the principle. Thought experiments are largely philosophical. I'd say they are the fine line between science and philosophy.
also, disclaimer: though I very much enjoy science, I'm better at philosophy. I also realize that I am quite unsure of my argumentation regarding this subject, so I might be wrong about what I say. This is just the way I've always seen it. I don't have a doctorate in philosophy or anything, and I have made many really stupid and ignorant claims in the past while discussing philosophy or science, hah.
(03-04-2013, 10:44 PM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]My last name isn't Dennett. j/k. Yeah, the whole your red, my red is really interesting to me, because it could look like anything, but you've been told its red all your life, so thats red, regardless of what it looks like to you. And I was just giving you shit about red shift. Did you know that PhD actually stands for Doctorate of Philosophy?
I did not. Sounds like something I should though
Also, that whole red shift followed by the my red your red thing might have been subconsciously intentional :p
(03-04-2013, 10:44 PM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]Ha, phlogiston. Old science is so funny. Especially because physicists have known stuff for way longer than chemists. Its also crazy to think about the stuff they didn't know, like how they discovered electrons after they could already create precise electric and magnetic fields.
Yeah. I still think some of their reasoning, while incorrect, was interesting.
The thing I always like to remember when I look back at stuff like that is that in 100 years people are going to be looking back at us saying things like "Man, those guys were dumb. They thought that gravity was an attractive force, and that the smallest particles were quarks, gluons, and electrons. How did they not know about all the particles they divide into? How did they do anything with thinking like that?"
They HONESTLY thought the Earth was flat in the 21st century?
What a bunch of dorks.
(03-04-2013, 10:44 PM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]Did you know that PhD actually stands for Doctorate of Philosophy?
Philosophy is the predecessor of science as we know it to day, that is why a Ph.D is a Doctorate of Philosophy, because usaully in a Ph.D you need to not only improve on current science or school of thinking but bring something completely new to the table. Where with a Masters you only have improve someone elses thought/idea/process...you get the picture.
(03-05-2013, 05:26 AM)Grungie Wrote: [ -> ]http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Knew about them :p
(03-05-2013, 04:53 AM)debbie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2013, 10:44 PM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]Did you know that PhD actually stands for Doctorate of Philosophy?
Philosophy is the predecessor of science as we know it to day, that is why a Ph.D is a Doctorate of Philosophy, because usaully in a Ph.D you need to not only improve on current science or school of thinking but bring something completely new to the table. Where with a Masters you only have improve someone elses thought/idea/process...you get the picture.
Makes sense. You need to ask questions before getting answers.
In other words, you need to ask "how are volcanoes made?" before answering it.
That is honestly my favorite thing about science though. The fact that everything we think is true is probably actually completely bogus and really dumb.
Science is sort of a game where you find out what needs to be confirmed and what needs to be refuted.
There's also evolution in science which is similar; from Aristotelian mechanics to Newtonian, from classical to relativistic and quantum physics, or from Newtonian gravity to general relativity, for instance. Some superseded science isn't wrong, but rather obsolete. Like going from making butter in a churning plunger to