Do many (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments?

[harvey1]

I realize that there's many (a)theists that accept philosophical arguments, but there's many here who seem very distrustful of philosophical arguments. Indeed, there's some (a)theists who give me the impression that they would never change their philosophy based on a philosophical argument. My question is how highly do you think most (a)theists rate the importance of philosophy in establishing what they believe with regard to God's existence. Is philosophy unimportant to most (a)theists--is that the right policy? Or, do many or most (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments because they are distrustful of any beliefs that are not established directly by science(/faith)?

[Bugmaster]

Harvey: do you honestly mean to say that "physics, biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, medicine, etc., etc..." and soon, "cognitive science, complexity, and cosmology" are all branches of philosophy ?! I sure hope that's not what you meant to say...

[harvey1]

Harvey: do you honestly mean to say that "physics, biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, medicine, etc., etc..." and soon, "cognitive science, complexity, and cosmology" are all branches of philosophy ?! I sure hope that's not what you meant to say...

Aristotle is perhaps the father of many of these fields. He wrote extensively about the philosophy of biology, philosophy of physics, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of chemistry, philosophy of geology, and many other fields of philosophy. Aristotle's works were advanced upon by later philosophers, including philosophers in Islamic and early Western periods. Gradually a field known as "natural philosophy" became part of the university curriculum, and modern science was eventually born from this new field of natural philosophy. Philosophers in Western Europe had discovered modern science, something that no one else in any other part of the globe had ever discovered.

Okay, the history lesson is over.

[Bugmaster]

Harvey: do you honestly mean to say that "physics, biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, medicine, etc., etc..." and soon, "cognitive science, complexity, and cosmology" are all branches of philosophy ?! I sure hope that's not what you meant to say...

Aristotle is perhaps the father of many of these fields...

Was that a "yes", or a "no" ? Please be specific. Okay, the English lesson is over.

Physics evolved from "natural philosophy", that is true, but it is not a branch of philosophy. Neither is chemistry a branch of alchemy, or astronomy a branch of astrology.

[harvey1]

Physics evolved from "natural philosophy", that is true, but it is not a branch of philosophy. Neither is chemistry a branch of alchemy, or astronomy a branch of astrology.

You're thinking anachronistically. When philosophers were considering the philosophy of the natural world they did not realize that there would be modern science. They were applying their philosophical tools of reason to the world in every facet. This approach was very successful and eventually led to a new way of interacting with nature via experimentation.

[harvey1]

Likewise, averages of people may be representable by real numbers, but people may only be representable by integers.

Technically, no. For real numbers, no one has even seen one, since they have infinite digits.

That's non-regular numbers.

We only have rational numbers (a finite number of digits divided by a 1 followed by a padding of zeros). Again, we approximate real numbers.

Real numbers include both rational and irrational numbers, and if you have a number on a real number line (e.g., an integer), then it is a real number. You aren't approximating that real number--it is a real number. Also, rational numbers do not always have a finite number of digits if it is a rational number with a repeating decimal.

People cannot be represented by integers, since we can't have -1 person.

Correction, positive integers. (However, we could say that if group A is minus Bob, then in that case -1 could refer to Bob not being present.)

Objects can be represented by whole numbers (posative [sic] integers except zero).

Objects can be represented by all kinds of numbers depending on context. For example, we could refer to a half empty carton of milk by the fraction: 1/2. The object in this case is the amount of milk in the carton.

OTOH, imaginary numbers can't represent anything since no one can get a grip on what sqrt(-1) means. They can be useful because (for example) exp(-i*x) can be equivalent to a sine function.

You really need to read that link. As I mentioned, the (0,1) can be used to represent an imaginary number.

No, I'm saying that there is a positive reason that imaginary numbers cannot be tied to a physical reality.

These applications exist all the time, and in many instances it's known why imaginary numbers work at representing physical reality. (0,1) means something and can be shown as to why it means something in the context in which they are being used.

Yes, for some we do. For example, the polynomial expression of genetic ratios in matings involving multiple loci. But this is not generally true.

I would say the opposite. I would say that experts in the field generally know why they are using imaginary numbers, and could replace the use of imaginary numbers using (0,1). There are cases in cosmology (e.g., imaginary time) where this number does not refer to a physical substance, and in that case it remains to be shown what imaginary time is referring to.

The path integral shows how 'F=ma' is an excellent approximation at classical scales.

Fine, but don't you see that philosophically speaking, "excellent approximation" means "false"?

What is the margin of error that you are considering? Physics always includes a margin of error no matter which theory we use to make a prediction.

Notice, however, that for theoretical objects you cannot do that.

Oh, so you think that subatomic particles are "theoretical"? Ha! Tell that to people who have had "theoretical" radiation poisoning.

This reminds me of those creationists who say that since evolution is a theory that it immediately means that there's no fact behind it. Of course science approaches the world in terms of theory. Theoretical objects are those objects that theory says exist. If we could interact directly with those objects by observation, then they are no longer just theoretical objects, but are now veridical objects of our perceptual experience.

What I am trying to say is that if we can see the interaction of some particle with some other matter (such as photo emulsion on a plate, although I'm sure they use digital techniques these days) then we have direct evidence of the existance of that particle, independant of theory.

It's not that simple. The accepted theory tells you what to consider significant, and it allows one to infer whether the hypothesized object exists or not. If you don't have the accepted theory to tell us what the experiments and observations indicate, then you have no means to know if the hypothesized object is really there. If you deny the accepted theory is about reality (i.e., the theory that we use to interpret particle signatures), then conversely you must deny the signatures are really about reality. These are called antirealists, and many antirealists deny the actual existence of subatomic particles as they are theoretically described.

We have lost sight completely of your original question, about whether there are philosophical arguments with sufficient force that they cannot be ignored. I say there aren't.

That's being inconsistent. When I ask you for your view of how you come to certain truths, you immediately turn to philosophical argument. However, when asked whether philosophical argument should convince us of anything, your answer seems to be "no."

[Bugmaster]

You're thinking anachronistically.

That could be my new slogan. "Bugmaster: Think Anachronistic."

When philosophers were considering the philosophy of the natural world they did not realize that there would be modern science. They were applying their philosophical tools of reason to the world in every facet. This approach was very successful and eventually led to a new way of interacting with nature via experimentation.

So, does this mean that physics is a branch of philosophy, and chemistry is a branch of alchemy ? I still don't have a clear answer.

[Bugmaster]

You really need to read that link. As I mentioned, the (0,1) can be used to represent an imaginary number.

Agreed. Furthermore, you can always build an electronic circuit that will be approximately represented by a few complex numbers. Thus, you can, in fact, "represent physical reality" with complex numbers. Yes, you can always use Euler's Formula to convert complex numbers from polar to rectangular form and back, but that doesn't make them any less useful.

However, just because you can use numbers -- yes, even positive integers ! -- to represent real objects, doesn't mean that the numbers themselves are real. To use an analogy, "the map is not the territory".

[harvey1]

So, does this mean that physics is a branch of philosophy, and chemistry is a branch of alchemy? I still don't have a clear answer.

At one time physics was a branch of philosophy, however the medieval philosophers developed new tools (e.g., different types of experimentation, different types of observation) that philosophy does not utilize. Therefore, physics, and the rest of the sciences broke off from philosophy and began the fields that constitute modern science. Chemistry didn't start as a branch of alchemy, rather it began with philosophers such as Thales and Empedocles who named the four elements of the world as earth, air, fire and water. Alchemy, magic, the black arts, etc. stemmed from religious and superstitious views of nature which pre-date philosophical thought. As humans developed culture, philosophers (e.g., Thales of Miletus) began to conceive of naturalistic interpretations of nature, and that marks the beginning of philosophical inspection of what elements compose the natural world. This wasn't chemistry per se, it was more of the early attempts of understanding the philosophy of chemistry. Later the philosophical approach brought about the science of chemistry, which eventually was able to rule out alchemists as scientists. Of course, it's easy to laugh at alchemy now that we know that without nuclear fusion it is not possible to create new elements, but it was not possible to have that knowledge back then. Fortunately, philosophers began to seriously study the notion of what elements the world is composed, and their success has led to us being able to laugh at alchemy.

[Bugmaster]

So, does this mean that physics is a branch of philosophy, and chemistry is a branch of alchemy? I still don't have a clear answer.

At one time physics was a branch of philosophy, however the medieval philosophers developed new tools (e.g., different types of experimentation, different types of observation) that philosophy does not utilize.

That sounds like a "no" answer to me, just to be clear.

This wasn't chemistry per se, it was more of the early attempts of understanding the philosophy of chemistry.

I'd argue that chemistry differs from philosophy and alchemy in that chemistry consists of certain predictable, measurable mechanisms, whereas philosophy just consists of coming up with ideas in your head. I don't disrespect alchemy because it was wrong; I disrespect it because it did not have an external standard of verification. This, IMO, is the clear difference between all kinds of philosophies, and science.

[harvey1]

I disrespect it because it did not have an external standard of verification. This, IMO, is the clear difference between all kinds of philosophies, and science.

Wasn't Newton doing experiments with alchemy? It seems to me that alchemy was pseudoscience.

Philosophy has a means of verification based on the power of logical argument. It can also utilize the findings of science to revise certain views (e.g., substantivialism has taken a new form in string theory).