Re: How much intelligence?


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44130aad.17671108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:46:30 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
<allan.c.cybulskie@xxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
(As a hint, there have been many discussions on this newsgroup about
behaviourism over the years. If behaviourism is true, not only is it the
case that whether or not anyone is convinced is outside of their control,
but also whether or not you or anyone else ARGUES for a particular side
is
outside of their control. Making everything pointless.)

Where I think you may have a problem with this line of reasoning,
Allan, is showing that philosophers have ever had anything worth
saying on scientific subjects.

Since it was the philosophers who STARTED science (science started from
empiricism, which merged with rationalism to become the science we know
today), I don't think I really need to show any more [grin].

It's philosophy who'll tell us what limits science has. It's philosophy
that will keep science in check when it attempts to ditch the subjective.
It's philosophy that points out what social issues certain scientific
methods and "conclusions" have. While philosophy doesn't do science well,
that's not what it's for.

The problem is Glen and behaviorism
start of with philosophy - monism, naturalized epistemology,
materialism, and behaviorism - so they can't wind up with anything
better than philosophy.

Of what you've listed, 3 of the 4 are basic assumptions that are made in
modern science ...

As far as I can tell philosophy is just so
much special pleading and circular reasoning. The best philosophers
give clear definition to their reasoning and admit when those limits
are exceeded. But they almost never come to any demonstrably true
conclusions.

Today, that's because that what's left for philosophy are those conclusions
that you cannot scientifically prove true. How can we demonstrate true
conclusions easily about those things that you cannot easily prove true?

I suppose one could say that occasional philosophers have actually
had significant things to say on science and other subjects over the
course of history. Descartes comes to mind in this respect. But I'm
still reluctant to concede the general idea of philosophy as a
substitute for truth in universal terms. I think that recommending
philosophy is what gets people into trouble to begin with because even
if one knows the truth choice in philosophy is not a matter of truth.

I recommend philosophy to everyone because it discourages one from dogmatic
adherence to one view about the world. Since none have been proven correct
yet, philosophy points this out in great detail.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)