News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Philosophy as a public service by nathias on Thursday January 02, 2020 @08:47AM (#21935281)
I don't see how this has anything to do with philosophy, thought experiments as such arent't philosophical, some philosophy (mostly anglosphere) just uses them to draw conclusions from common sense intuitions. This kind of 'philosophy' has been a public service for as long as art exists which often draws from concepts of science and philosophy and presents it in a easily digestible form to common sense.
Re:Philosophy as a public service by bscphil on Thursday January 02, 2020 @03:46PM (#21939625)
I have a degree in philosophy, and I agree with you. I don't see what this article has to do with philosophy as it's understood academically, and I'm also pretty unsure what the (rather self-aggrandizing) title (the site uses the title Philosophy Is a Public Service) has to do with the contents, since there's very little there to defend that claim or even talking about philosophy's role in the public sphere at all.

A more apt title would be "How I Developed Several Public Art Projects".

Re:Philosophy as a public service by gowld on Friday January 03, 2020 @03:55PM (#21950253)
The artist has a degree in philospophy, so he calls his art philosophy.

Is putting a ring on a tree to measure its growth (and highlight the lack thereof) any more "art" than "philosophy"?

Re:Philosophy as a public service by jeliotj on Thursday January 02, 2020 @09:49AM (#21935739)
It begs the question of what philosophy is. If it is "love of wisdom", as the Ancient Greeks suggested, then it seeks to know all things. That is, it seeks knowledge of what is, not of what is most likely, which is the domain of modern science.
Re:Philosophy as a public service by finaliteration on Thursday January 02, 2020 @10:56AM (#21936399)
> begs the question

I normally wouldn’t be pedantic about this but because this is a discussion about philosophy I have to point out that it doesn’t “beg the question”. “Begging the question” is an informal logical fallacy where an argument’s premises assume that its conclusion is true so it ends up being circular. I think you mean it “raises the question”.

Re:Philosophy as a public service by jcims on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:51PM (#21937734)
The problem is 'begs the question' is not an intuitive phrase to describe the formal definition, so we're going to be stuck with this correction forever.

At this point I feel it has only survived as a form of shibboleth.

Re:Philosophy as a public service by philwelch on Thursday January 02, 2020 @02:26PM (#21938773)
You’d think that, but we pedants managed to rescue the word “ironic” at one point.
Re:Philosophy as a public service by GauntletWizard on Thursday January 02, 2020 @06:14PM (#21941000)
But you've figuratively lost "literally".
Re:Philosophy as a public service by philwelch on Saturday January 04, 2020 @12:27AM (#21953066)
That's just highly advanced irony; using the word "literally" non-literally.
Re:Philosophy as a public service by throwlaplace on Thursday January 02, 2020 @02:01PM (#21938527)
>The problem is 'begs the question' is not an intuitive phrase to describe the formal definition

it does if you look at the etymology; beg comes begging off i.e. asking for exemption from something. it's archaic at this point of course but still fairly intelligible in that use; "he begged off doing his chores".

Re:Philosophy as a public service by jeliotj on Thursday January 02, 2020 @05:32PM (#21940665)
You're correct, I appreciate you noting that.
Re:Philosophy as a public service by SantalBlush on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:27AM (#21936734)
It was clear from the context that "begs the question" here essentially means "raises the question," as is often the case. If there is no confusion, there should be no need for clarification.
Re:Philosophy as a public service by pmoriarty on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:42AM (#21936879)
"it seeks knowledge of what is, not of what is most likely, which is the domain of modern science"

Physics, arguably the bedrock and most "certain" of the sciences, has long struggled with what the phenomena it studies actually are, leading to a "shut up and calculate" attitude popularized by Feynman, where physicists just throw their hands up and focus on the mathematics and abstractions rather than engaging with the ultimate what and why questions, which they leave (rightly) to philosophy.

The boundary questions (for example, what is physics, what is chemistry, what are their proper objects of study, and so on) are also philosophical questions, and not anything any amount of empirical study, hypothesizing, predicting, or model-making can solve.

Questions about what humanity as a whole, any subgroup of humans, or any individual one of us should do are also not amenable to scientific inquiry. Neither are questions of what is right and wrong. Science can only ever be descriptive, not prescriptive.

Re:Philosophy as a public service by shard972 on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:22AM (#21936681)
Postmodernist's would disagree with you heavily that the two domains intersect.

Philosophy goal is uncover truth where science is restricted mostly to the realm of facts and empirical truths.

An example would be the question of the meaning of life, science has little ability to answer this question other that to claim it doesn't actually exist or it's just a complex expression of atoms working together where with philosophy there are countless ways to answer this age old question.

Re:Philosophy as a public service by gloriousduke on Thursday January 02, 2020 @04:44PM (#21940222)
This may sound absurd, but you actually need some (mostly settled) philosophy to determine what “facts and empirical truths” are.