GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla Shen wrote: No. And that's been one of the points I've been making. You don't actually have to be a philosopher to be a scientist. Science is a methodological model dealing specifically with theory and experimentation, and which developed in the human dialectic as the result of a clash between philosophy and theology. In other words, just as with anything else, it didn't pop out of nowhere and has the causes which distinguish it from things it is/what it is not.

If you're a scientist without being a philosopher then you're a shitty scientist because science IS "natural philosophy". Just look up the word "philosophy" in the dictionary and it will tell you there are 3 kinds.
Natural philosophy
Moral philosophy
Metaphysical philosophy

The primary reason people do ANYTHING is because of fear.

Are your proofs for this scientific?

They're common sense but if they happen to also be scientific so be it.

Yes, they are shitty. Strangely, they argue just like you.

Science is distinct from philosophy.

That,s why, for example, it can produce doctors without producing philosophers.

Leyla Shen wrote:Science is distinct from philosophy.

That,s why, for example, it can produce doctors without producing philosophers.

How can someone be a doctor without empirical philosophy? Doctors try to find causes and effects all the time too. How many times have you seen "X causes cancer!" in the headlines? It's because they're doing research to find the causes of diseases. It's not as if cause and effect don't matter to them.

Yes, yes—all organic life is ego in varying forms of complexity.

All doctors are research scientists.

A=A=A=A... ad nauseum.

Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, yes—all organic life is ego in varying forms of complexity.

Well no, even though trees and other plants can "suffer" biologically they can't suffer psychologically and they have no sense of self whatsoever. So I would not say that trees have egos so that statement that ALL organic life is/has an ego is not what I believe.

All doctors are research scientists.

No, I wouldn't say ALL doctors are research scientists but some definitely are. It's the better doctors that actually understand what they're doing. Some just do things as a routine process without thinking about it.

Yes, you're as changeable as the weather, aren't you?

No, I wouldn't say ALL doctors are research scientists but some definitely are. It's the better doctors that actually understand what they're doing. Some just do things as a routine process without thinking about it.

How can someone be a doctor without empirical philosophy? Doctors try to find causes and effects all the time too. How many times have you seen "X causes cancer!" in the headlines? It's because they're doing research to find the causes of diseases. It's not as if cause and effect don't matter to them.

A=A=A=A…

Neurosis, yes. Not yet hysteria.

Life as a single uninterrupted stream of foreplay.

I bet you have problems climaxing.

Note that I didn't say ALL doctors try to find cures for diseases all the time.

And no, I always climax when I want to.

I'm still trying to get my head around what "empirical philosophy" might be.

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm still trying to get my head around what "empirical philosophy" might be.

The philosophy of empiricism of course. The idea that one can only know the universe through the senses.
But I'm not saying that's the ONLY philosophy that doctors might use.
Logic is required on some level too.
But I think it all falls under the category of "natural philosophy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Well, fine. I know it simply as Empiricism. It's a particular philosophical outlook, and a dumb one at that. As for "natural philosophy" - that's a pretty much archaic term that hasn't been used since modern science was developed.

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, fine. I know it simply as Empiricism. It's a particular philosophical outlook, and a dumb one at that. As for "natural philosophy" - that's a pretty much archaic term that hasn't been used since modern science was developed.

Empiricism by itself may be silly but we still use empirical data all the time to figure things out.
And even if "natural philosophy" is an old term it still proves that at least at one point that science was a form of philosophy.

Orenholt wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, fine. I know it simply as Empiricism. It's a particular philosophical outlook, and a dumb one at that. As for "natural philosophy" - that's a pretty much archaic term that hasn't been used since modern science was developed.

Empiricism by itself may be silly but we still use empirical data all the time to figure things out.

Well, yes, that's what science is.

And even if "natural philosophy" is an old term it still proves that at least at one point that science was a form of philosophy.

There was a methodology for attempting to gain knowledge of the world. Not sure I'd call it science, since they didn't do that either. It fell within the rubric of the more general pursuits of philosophy. Mostly, it was shit, because it wasn't till proper science was developed that we really began to get the difference between induction and deduction.

Dan Rowden wrote:There was a methodology for attempting to gain knowledge of the world. ...

If anything today it would be "falsifiability". The closest thing to a philosophy which many people would (wrongly) equal with science would be metaphysical naturalism or how Nature (the universe) consists only of spatiotemporal physical substance: mass–energy and no other "supernatural" elements. Of course this is itself not scientific and even creates the problems of already assuming substances of some kind based on a science based on the same belief: ad absurdum.

... it wasn't till proper science was developed that we really began to get the difference between induction and deduction.

Aristotle had that difference already pegged down pretty well. He also had logic (analytics) as the first, philosophy (all theoretical and practical sciences) following. The main difference with modern science is that it's not anymore enough to just reason out universal laws by observation. Nowadays more experiment, testing and rigid calculation is required, question and test, question and test. But this is also better possible within the larger scientific community with all the fine tuned equipment. Perhaps there's also way more skepticism and awareness of historical scientific error than in Aristotle's time.

This is my response to the opening post, I'm going to avoid the discussion of science versus philosophy.

So, Orenholt, your concluding question, "what makes modern homo sapiens better than animals [...]?", involves a value judgement (due to the word "better"). We need to consider then on what basis we might make that value judgement, and in particular, what the most objective basis for making that value judgement is. I get the sense from the way you've framed the question (especially your prologue and the part I've snipped) that your basis for the value judgement is "cognitive and creative capacity", and you seem to be arguing that the gap between humans and animals in those abilities is not as great as we might instinctively believe, which I actually think is a reasonable argument, although it is not one that could justify an answer of "They aren't" to the question in this thread's title, since it admits of a gap, albeit a smaller one than first imagined (phew, that's quite the run-on sentence!).

I would like to suggest, though, that the basis you've suggested is not the most objective one possible, and that it is in fact fairly subjective: we might equally suggest alternative (and equally subjective) bases as "capacity to engage in social behaviour", "capacity to love", or "sensory acuteness" - and probably you could come up with others. In the course of thinking through my arguments for animal and plant rights, I've considered the question of value, which, as you no doubt understand already, is a key question in the consideration of what rights to grant other life forms. My conclusion is that the most objective basis for assessing a life(form)'s value is, kind of paradoxically, the subjective value it holds for the subject of that life. Another way of putting this is: the (most objective) value of a life should be based in how much (subjective) satisfaction there is in living that life.

This, I think, draws together all of the subjective bases for value that we've covered already, because each of them contributes in some meaningful way to satisfaction: it is satisfying not only to make use of one's cognitive and creative abilities, but through using them one can generate more satisfaction in the form of stimulating/entertaining/comforting/sustaining technologies, rituals and events; social behaviour is certainly satisfying for those life forms which engage in it; likewise love; and who could deny the obvious satisfaction that, say, a dog derives from sniffing absolutely anything it can point its wet, furry snout at - which is to say that sensory acuteness can be satisfying.

I would go on to suggest, then, that on this basis, it's not clear that homo sapiens are better. Sure, they are better by some subjective criteria, but then, we can't get inside the heads of animals to find out by a more objective criteria how much their lives mean to them, and, I would argue that it's certainly possible that due to the unique traits, skills and talents of different species, many animals and plants are at least as satisfied with their lives as humans are. This could be a long list but to take one example, can you imagine the joy that flight provides a bird with? Isn't it entirely conceivable that the joy of flight for a bird is at least as intense as the joy of a scientist's "Eureka!" moment? OK, I will offer another example after all: how about a wolf howling at the moon? Imagine what it's feeling in that sacred moment: isn't it very possible that the profoundness of that experience for the wolf beats the joy of, say, winning a gold medal at the Olympics?

Humans are undoubtedly better than animals in the way you suggest, yet in other ways they are not e.g. sensory acuteness, capacity for flight, capacity for locomotion through water, and, the one most relevant to the current age, capacity to live environmentally sustainable lives. We can't know for certain at this juncture, but in my view it's likely that animals and plants are at least equally as valuable as humans by the most objective criteria I can think of: the value the subject of the life holds its life in.

"I know the joy of fishes in the river through my own joy, as I go walking along the same river."- zhuangzi

:-)

Thanks for that well written response guest_of_logic. :)

Homo sapiens are only better if you believe them to be better.

Because Homo sapiens is the only known human species still in existence?

Look, Homo Sapiens can make fantastic waffles and caramel source. When cows can do that I'll agree they're at least equal.

Maybe they're just health-conscious.