XKCD: It's more than a comic

To add, the scientific method is a product of philosophy. Broadly speaking, it's the result of asking "how do we know things?" If no one had ever thought about that, we wouldn't be able to meaningfully run experiments in the first place.

In general, a lot of philosophy falls into what I'd imagine people think of as common sense. But, well, it's important to question common sense whenever you can, because it's often wrong. You see that in science, and you see it in philosophy. Even if you never come up with a satisfactory answer (which is pretty common), you can at least figure out what your assumptions are.

Let's also not forget that some forerunners of the scientific method had both a philosophical background and a religious bakground (e.g. Saint Augustine, Alhazen^note aka ibn al-Haytham, Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, William of Ockham, and others).

Honestly though, I could definitely understand a "but what has it done for us lately?" criticism of philosophy. Studying philosophy nowadays is closer to studying history than it is to studying a science.

I did agree that philosophy is the root of sciences.

But all the examples shown of what modern philosophy studies fail to go past digging in the dirt, they do not advance. They have spent thousands of years arguing what consciousness is while having all possible data (that is, conscious humans all around) and will keep going about it forever. Meanwhile, an AI could get created simply using the same data as the baseline, without any of philosophy's conclusions on the matter (for example, neuroscience analyses how human brain comes to conclusions, engineering emulates it, "consciousness? dunno, didn't see anything special in there").
Philosophy is needed to create an AI only because philosophy needs to define what is conscious AI because philosophy said so, which is the same brand of tautology that got me hating on the whole thing in the first place.

Edit: And just. Fuck it. I'm out.

edited 29th Aug '15 1:58:15 PM by Adannor

That's not a problem with philosophy, it's a problem with language.

Edit: I definitely think you could create an artificial human brain by simulating all the nerve connections, but you could probably save some time by just having a human baby. I mean, creating brains is trivial, in that sense. I suppose being able to perfectly copy a brain would be a breakthrough, obviously, but it wouldn't really deepen our understanding of anything unless you tweaked the specs in meaningful ways. To be honest though, I don't think "consciousness" has any relevant meaning anyway.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the main point of creating an artificial brain would be to experiment on it in otherwise inhumane ways("...can we make it more obedient?"). Which definitely brings up an ethical problem.

edited 29th Aug '15 2:06:49 PM by Clarste

It's not that philosophy is needed because philosophy says so. It's that philosophy is needed because it's the way we get the concepts and questions and methods that we use to discover problems and solve them. There is no baseline, no method, no problem, and by extension no answer without philosophy.

We need philosophy because there is no other way to figure out what we want to discover, or how to discover it. (This is true even if you don't care whether discovering it is actually important, or whether it has any interesting implications - that, of course, is still philosophy but nevermind.)

And while I say "you" as if I'm directing this at Adannor, of course a conversation like this is for every participant (including any possible lurkers) so I thought I'd say this even though I don't expect a reply from Adannor - I do respect an "I'm out".

In some ways, I think calling it "philosophy" just makes it seem needlessly obtuse, or even intimidating. It's just "thinking about stuff". The root of philosophy is logic, and you apply logic to... stuff.

It's not just thinking about stuff: philosophy requires systematic thinking with a methodology and a way to get results that others can also investigate and possibly refute.

Calling philosophy "just thinking about stuff" is about the same as calling science "just looking at stuff", or literature "just writing stuff". It implies that there's no difference between a measurement and a passing glance, or a brief text message and a novel.

I don't think we should mind if the word "philosophy" appears intimidating. Philosophy literally means the love of wisdom. Any systematic effort to discover truths or models that can be investigated and tested against reality is philosophy.

These days we only tend to apply the term "philosophy" to stuff that you can do on an armchair, without leaving your office; but most modern philosophy is deeply rooted in the field(s) of science relevant to the question at hand, so a philosopher will have to get a good understanding of that field, and their philosophical research will probably generate research questions that said field can then start investigating.

Well, I suppose you're already saying most of that in "applying logic to stuff" but I don't think it's necessarily useful to simplify it like that. Philosophy requires discipline, and that should be conveyed in any discussion about philosophy if there's any question of whether people know what philosophy actually is.

Well, when someone's questioning the value of philosophy because they think it's about "the color of invisible teapots" or "deciding what things you need philosophy for" then I think it's important for them to realize what a fundamental activity it is, and how broadly it applies. Philosophy is simply the art of thinking: how to think rigorously and in constructive ways. You can apply it to anything, some of which is useful or interesting, and some of which is not.

edited 29th Aug '15 4:01:29 PM by Clarste

but most modern philosophy is deeply rooted in the field(s) of science relevant to the question at hand, so a philosopher will have to get a good understanding of that field, and their philosophical research will probably generate research questions that said field can then start investigating.

That makes it sound like philosophy isn't it's own thing, but the meta-theory discussions of the different fields.

I agree with everything you said, except that I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to give such a broad definition because if someone is predisposed against philosophy that'll just be a door to attack a misconceived version of it.

If, just out of the blue, I said something like "If everyone was colourblind I wonder if people would still have invented names for the colours they couldn't see", and left it at that, I couldn't really be said to be doing proper philosophy. (Although that actually might be a fairly interesting question - I was just trying to come up with something random.)

If I said something like this:

I'd at least be closer to doing actual philosophy. Of course I'd also have to think about whether my results have any implications that might be relevant for other questions, or give rise to new ones. For instance, this fake question of mine might serve as a basis for an effort to develop a culture-independent system for naming colours, which could be helpful in translation and various other fields. It could also provide some fairly interesting data to do with questions about qualia.

EDIT:.

Like just about any science, philosophy is deeply interconnected with other fields. A linguist studying the way people change their dialect when they're talking to people of different social backgrounds would have to have a fairly strong basis in sociology. Similarly, a philosopher studying the way humans invent myths, say, would have to have an understanding of fields like developmental psychology, sociology, linguistics, and history - depending on which angle the philosopher picks for approaching the question at hand.

In some fields - logic, for instance - philosophy can be mostly (or even entirely) self-contained but since natural sciences have branched out any philosophical investigation would almost inevitably have to incorporate something from the relevant field.

Even in an apparently self-contained field of philosophy - ethics comes to mind - it can be the case that practical investigation will end up being connected to another field of science. The experiment of asking people from different backgrounds how they would behave in a given situation has been used to figure out whether there are universalities of human morality. (One discovery, just as an example, is that people usually would save five lives if it required the sacrifice of one life. Look up "trolley problems".) Basically nothing in this question could have been suggested by anything other than philosophy, but the implications for sociology are quite significant. The results might even be relevant for economics.

edited 29th Aug '15 4:25:11 PM by BestOf

I'd also argue that they are shaped by both the environment/landscape and its resources, and what you can/could do with those resources, within a culture (I'm putting a bit of Oswald Spengler and cultural anthropology here).

edited 29th Aug '15 4:21:12 PM by Quag15

I put a couple of extra paragraphs into my previous post just now. I'm posting this to make sure anyone who's interested doesn't miss it because I got 'd while editing. (It's my fault for making my edits so big.)

edited 29th Aug '15 4:26:23 PM by BestOf

So, first, philosophers ask the questions.

Next, the scientists answer those questions. (In many cases, these're the same dudes.)

Finally, the engineer does something practical with those answers.

And this whole process may take millenniums.

Well, that's the ideal case, which doesn't always happen, but yes.

Car Model Names.

A Porsche Marxism would be delightfully ironic.

I really want to see some of those car names.

So, abusing statistics again, eh? Everything is a good car name if it contains enough Xs (0s and Zs help too).

Frankly I'm amazed the Hyundai Climax doesn't already exist.

Sexclimax sounds like a reference to King Ralph: "The important thing to ask yourself is 'Will this car help me get laid?'."

I almost want to see a Mitsubishi Fhqwhgads.

Sounds like that prayer to Cthulhu.

Maybe, but unlike Cthulhu, they love you

Fu@#wads? In some dialect, at least?