Imo we all do philosophy in the informal sense, all the time. In the formal sense, it's been largely superseded by science, even though the latter is underpinned by philosophy. Or if you like, science is arguably one type of applied philosophy. The 'just thinking' type, or what's called armchair philosophy, has lost most of its traction when it comes to useful output. By useful I mean adding to our knowledge.

What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department. That is, philosophy enables us to see the epistemological limits of science/observation, meaning that there is no sense at all in which science supersedes philosophy.

If I were you, I'd go and buy myself an armchair. It might help you to stop spewing silly and erroneous mantras.

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department.

Something which really only matters to those disposed to thinking that metaphysics has a use.

Sendraks wrote:

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department.

Something which really only matters to those disposed to thinking that metaphysics has a use.

For those who care, metaphysics should be paramount within the context of how and why one uses something, not least other beings. It's all about purpose, squire. For those happy to live the life of pecking chickens, yes metaphysics has no use.

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department. That is, philosophy enables us to see the epistemological limits of science/observation, meaning that there is no sense at all in which science supersedes philosophy.

If I were you, I'd go and buy myself an armchair. It might help you to stop spewing silly and erroneous mantras.

Ok, do me the contributions of armchair philosophy to the biological sciences, for example. You know, the ones which include those who will see you in the hospital A & E department, despite your reservations about the limitations of their epistemology.

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department. That is, philosophy enables us to see the epistemological limits of science/observation, meaning that there is no sense at all in which science supersedes philosophy.

If I were you, I'd go and buy myself an armchair. It might help you to stop spewing silly and erroneous mantras.

Ok, do me the contributions of armchair philosophy to the biological sciences, for example.

Only after you present the contributions of science which have solved any philosophical issue.

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department. That is, philosophy enables us to see the epistemological limits of science/observation, meaning that there is no sense at all in which science supersedes philosophy.

If I were you, I'd go and buy myself an armchair. It might help you to stop spewing silly and erroneous mantras.

Ok, do me the contributions of armchair philosophy to the biological sciences, for example. You know, the ones which include those who will see you in the hospital A & E department, despite your reservations about their epistemology.

Well. Actually. Biology has been changed a bit by some philosophy but it's not the kind of shit you will find around here.

jamest wrote:

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department. That is, philosophy enables us to see the epistemological limits of science/observation, meaning that there is no sense at all in which science supersedes philosophy.

If I were you, I'd go and buy myself an armchair. It might help you to stop spewing silly and erroneous mantras.

Ok, do me the contributions of armchair philosophy to the biological sciences, for example.

Only after you present the contributions of science which have solved any philosophical issue.

Well, 'adding to our knowledge' is not the same as 'solved', but if you think philosophy has done anything remotely within a thousand miles of what science has done for our understanding of what the world is and how it works, good luck with that.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department. That is, philosophy enables us to see the epistemological limits of science/observation, meaning that there is no sense at all in which science supersedes philosophy.

If I were you, I'd go and buy myself an armchair. It might help you to stop spewing silly and erroneous mantras.

Ok, do me the contributions of armchair philosophy to the biological sciences, for example. You know, the ones which include those who will see you in the hospital A & E department, despite your reservations about their epistemology.

Well. Actually. Biology has been changed a bit by some philosophy but it's not the kind of shit you will find around here.

Precious little, if any at all, imo. Almost entirely commentary after the fact.

jamest wrote:

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department. That is, philosophy enables us to see the epistemological limits of science/observation, meaning that there is no sense at all in which science supersedes philosophy.

If I were you, I'd go and buy myself an armchair. It might help you to stop spewing silly and erroneous mantras.

Ok, do me the contributions of armchair philosophy to the biological sciences, for example.

Only after you present the contributions of science which have solved any philosophical issue.

We found out that awareness is all physical process. That eliminates all the spirit shit at once.

Gents, if you had a clue, you'd know that philosophy and science are not even in competition... as they're both playing different games.

jamest wrote:Gents, if you had a clue, you'd know that philosophy and science are not even in competition... as they're both playing different games.

Yes, one that mostly gets results and one that mostly doesn't.

jamest wrote:
For those who care, metaphysics should be paramount within the context of how and why one uses something, not least other beings. It's all about purpose, squire. For those happy to live the life of pecking chickens, yes metaphysics has no use.

For those of us who employ logic and reason to understand that purpose is something we construct for ourselves and does not come from mystical outside forces, metaphysics is a waste of time. A tool employed where there is a lack of willingness to take responsibility their own actions and a general feeling of insecurity that requires the construct of a security blanket of "purpose" being provided by an outside force. But hey, as long as those folk happy to wade in such fatuous ignorance don't try to compel others to treat it as anything other that fictitious naval gazing, I've no problem with it.

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:Gents, if you had a clue, you'd know that philosophy and science are not even in competition... as they're both playing different games.

Yes, one that mostly gets results and one that mostly doesn't.

Yes, but those scientific results have a very limited value. Philosophy isn't generally about improving the quality of one's physical existence... politics aside.

archibald wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:What a load of horlicks, since philosophy itself exposes science/observation to be lame in the metaphysical department. That is, philosophy enables us to see the epistemological limits of science/observation, meaning that there is no sense at all in which science supersedes philosophy.

If I were you, I'd go and buy myself an armchair. It might help you to stop spewing silly and erroneous mantras.

Ok, do me the contributions of armchair philosophy to the biological sciences, for example. You know, the ones which include those who will see you in the hospital A & E department, despite your reservations about their epistemology.

Well. Actually. Biology has been changed a bit by some philosophy but it's not the kind of shit you will find around here.

Precious little, if any, imo.

Actually I think it has been changed massively. The holistic systems approach came out of some philosophy. I have some books. I can check if I get time and point to what I am talking about. I mean a lot of science is about building and predicting. But that doesn't cover the whole of it. Understanding our world and place in it, is a big part as well. Explaining it, for those whose highest value is to be fascinated with the complex of how things work, is another.

Philosophy allows us to analyze and deconstruct the language and thinking that presents to us what it is we want ask. Consider this mind business. The philosophy that lies beneath the question is in it's infancy. It's barely crawled out of the womb. The science is far, far ahead of our understanding of what it is that the science is explaining.

But until the language and thinking about 'mind' catches up to science people will continue to say ridiculous things like 'science hasn't explained mind-x' as if it were a fact. It is not a fact. It is a radical misunderstanding of the problem space. People who say this should be slapped sharply upside the head until they agree to re-think the question.

jamest wrote:Gents, if you had a clue, you'd know that philosophy and science are not even in competition... as they're both playing different games.

Agreed.

One investigates stuff with the aim of explaining.

The other contemplates what stuff would be good to investigate and considers what might be useful approaches toward same and what the results might indicate.

Then there's what you do.

jamest wrote:Yes, but those scientific results have a very limited value.

Because you say so?
The evidence in support of scientific endeavour rather suggests the opposite. The millions of lives saved or enhanced by scientific endeavours in medicine alone, can hardly be considered to be of limited value.

How many lives has Philosophy saved recently?

Fenrir wrote:

jamest wrote:Gents, if you had a clue, you'd know that philosophy and science are not even in competition... as they're both playing different games.

Agreed.

One investigates stuff with the aim of explaining.

The other contemplates what stuff would be good to investigate and considers what might be useful approaches toward same and what the results might indicate.

Then there's what you do.

What you do James, isn't philosophy, it's convoluted apologetics.

Fenrir wrote:

jamest wrote:Gents, if you had a clue, you'd know that philosophy and science are not even in competition... as they're both playing different games.

Agreed.

One investigates stuff with the aim of explaining.

The other contemplates what stuff would be good to investigate and considers what might be useful approaches toward same and what the results might indicate.

Sure, but scientists aren't just waiting around for philosophers to come up with the important questions. The philosophy part has to a great extent (not completely) been subsumed into science and is now part of it. In some ways, science is just checking to see if you're right (or how right).

archibald wrote: The philosophy part has to a great extent (not completely) been subsumed into science and is now part of it.

Indeed. Whilst the philosophers are musing on "whether lives should be saved" science is busy saving lives. Whilst the philosophers are waxing lyrical about "purpose" science is busy making it possible for people to have those conversations with people on the other side of the world.