CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
27
Philosophy is useless poetry Philosophy will give is truth.
Debate Score:53
Arguments:52
Total Votes:58
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Philosophy is useless poetry (25)
 
 Philosophy will give is truth. (25)

Debate Creator

Rick_Zeta5A(357) pic



Philosophy as a scientific tool or measure is completely useless, Not ever considered.

Simply put, I believe philosophy, philosophies and philosophers are useless in the wake of scientific discovery and furthermore I believe it should never be considered in a scientific debate.   Philosophies are human words that try to relay constructs of form or reason, but are useless as models to come to truth.  They are metadata, and if not transcribed to the correct part of the brain, they can be like a bad computer virus, copying over and over the wrong information and interrupting thought.  

Philosophy is useless poetry

Side Score: 26
VS.

Philosophy will give is truth.

Side Score: 27

This being a purely and ironically philosophical debate, I believe I can sum up my position as follows. Science builds models based on the interpolation of facts. There is no room in the conclusion for philosophical equivocations. The facts must either fall or stand on their own strengths, whether or not a group of sociologists remarks on their voracity. The only philosophical point of science is the one that defines its use in society as a tool for finding truths, and that is a philosophical debate the entire world has had many times over, and one for which universal consensus has been reached.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
Amarel(5000) Clarified
1 point

interpolation

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

interpolate

[in-tur-puh-leyt]

verb (used with object), in·ter·po·lat·ed, in·ter·po·lat·ing.

to introduce (something additional or extraneous) between other things or parts; interject; interpose; intercalate.

Mathematics.to insert, estimate, or find an intermediate term in (a sequence).

Side: Philosophy will give is truth.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

I use the word to refer to the information that stems from scientific discovery once it has entered our brains. The fact is that when we are young we have a structured world view, from our parents or from our schools or from our friends, and that world view is just a list of fact or fictions that allow us to derive opinions on subjects. Sometimes these world views allow people to believe things without proper evidence, which is a failure of the recording process, being that it is interrupted at some point. In these cases data has been coallated by the brain, then randomly accessed when needed in order to recall, but not interpolated properly. Meaning that it is not reintroduced in the proper directory, because the sub-routine won’t allow some portion of it through the interpolated result. They can’t put the new data in between the current data, their brain refuses to interpolate.

I literally mean they struggle to re-record the data associated to truth from factual models, because they have a hard time introducing the new evidences and finding them to be truthful factual models of the environment.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry

I use the word to refer to the information that stems from scientific discovery once it has entered our brains. The fact is that when we are young we have a structured world view, from our parents or from our schools or from our friends, and that world view is just a list of fact or fictions that allow us to derive opinions on subjects. Sometimes these world views allow people to believe things without proper evidence, which is a failure of the recording process, being that it is interrupted at some point. In these cases data has been coallated by the brain, then randomly accessed when needed in order to recall, but not interpolated properly. Meaning that it is not reintroduced in the proper directory, because the sub-routine won’t allow some portion of it through the interpolated result. They can’t put the new data in between the current data, their brain refuses to interpolate.

I literally mean they struggle to re-record the data associated to truth from factual models, because they have a hard time introducing the new evidences and finding them to be truthful factual models of the environment.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
Amarel(5000) Disputed
1 point

I use the word to refer to the information that stems from scientific discovery once it has entered our brains.

Really? So when you said ”Science builds models based on the interpolation of facts.”, you meant “Science builds models based the information that stems from scientific discovery once it has entered our brains”? Well, that’s circular and incorrect. If you had used the word “interpretation” as I suspect you meant to, then your post would have been correct.

In these cases data has been coallated by the brain, then randomly accessed when needed in order to recall, but not interpolated properly

If by “coallated”, you mean “collated”, then what you are saying is that when our worldview allows us to believe things without sufficient evidence, it is because the brain has organized data for random access but has not inserted, introduced, or interjected the data properly. This too is not typically true. If a conclusion is faulty as a result of an inaccurate or incorrect worldview, then data has not been “interpreted” properly. This faulty interpretation is the result of faulty premises which compose the worldview in question. Meaning data is reintroduced properly, it is just inaccurate data.

Meaning that it is not reintroduced in the proper directory, because the sub-routine won’t allow some portion of it through the interpolated result.

This describes a neurological disorder concerning the organization of mental information, not an issue of philosophy as it relates to science. Using the word “interpretation” would fix this error.

I literally mean they struggle to re-record the data associated to truth from factual models, because they have a hard time introducing the new evidences and finding them to be truthful factual models of the environment.

Interesting, because what you literally said was ” The facts must either fall or stand on their own strengths, whether or not a group of sociologists remarks on their voracity”. Sociology is a social science.

The only philosophical point of science is the one that defines its use in society as a tool for finding truths

This too is incorrect, I will address it in the more relevant post on the right.

Side: Philosophy will give is truth.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

Yes collate.

It doesn’t matter how you ‘interpret’ the data, the data could be taught and in that case, it’s been interpreted for you. If you read s scientific book then the information has been interpreted for you once again. An interpretation being the definitions of the individual words. Once that information has passed into the brain, certain ideas need to placed beside other ideas in our heads. For example.

You could read a book on dinosaurs, and it tells you that dinosaurs evolved 60 million years ago. But because your church tells you that the world is only 8000 years old, you may not think a book on archaeology trumps the magic stories in the bible. So now inside your head you have two opposing views stuck right next to each other. What should happen and usually does in most cases is that a bulk of scientific facts and models get transcribed in our minds, which replace the theological information, eventually causing the person to become disenfranchised from religiosity because the information is interpolated properly. That is the that the new information or concepts are placed in between the current or previous information, and the overall equation has a series of new definitions, based on the interpolation of the facts.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

If you have data.

W x y and z.

These data points can be configured into an algebraic solution that give you a model.

W plus x times y divided by z.

This model may or not be correct.

New data points come into being, but it is unclear where the new data points fit into the equation. The new data must be reinterpolated, so that the new model can become more or less accurate than the old model. Meaning literally the new data points must be set in the equation with the other data points, and the equation must be re-solved.

Science does this constantly, it’s always always trying to reinterpolate data to refine a particular theory or equation.

An interpretation is an alternate explanation based on the connotation or quantitative understanding of words themselves. I think you don’t understand the intrinsic difference between the two words and the concepts that bely them.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry

“It would be a self-imposed ignorance to denounce emotion and thought (humanistic is the only kind we have). Self-imposed ignorance is not reasonable, which is probably why we have scientific fields of study devoted to understanding emotions and thought.”

Very shortly here on Earth, we will be able to derive an opinion based on all known factual data, interpolated with no humanistic intervention(classical selfish human nature ie: humans are more important than whales cause we can do math), or emotional, or denominational attributes or opinions in the form of Artificial Intelligence. When a true AI interpolates data, it will do do without the base of experiential knowledge, because it won’t have any. It will have pure logically modelled thinking, and will most likely be the best way to come up with and test theoretical models that have such obscure results as conclusions, that they may have been wrappped up in human mysticism and lore for eternity.

Emotional, humanistic and denominational opinions are not a good way to come to factual, empirical revelations. As evidenced by the sheer amount of selfish behaviour of societies and leaders throughout time.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
Amarel(5000) Disputed
1 point

Very shortly here on Earth, we will be able to derive an opinion based on all known factual data, interpolated with no humanistic intervention

No we won’t. First, all known factual data will not be available even to the most sophisticated system. Second, human intervention will determine what opinions are derived from AI. Third, thoughts and emotions will be subjects of study for which AI will be utilized. This is because thoughts and emotions are a fact of existence, which is why it would be self imposed ignorance to denounce them.

It will have pure logically modelled thinking

Logic is a product and field of philosophy.

classical selfish human nature ie: humans are more important than whales cause we can do math

I don’t think anyone believes this. Rather people believe that humans are more important than whales because we are humans. It would be irrational for a species to value another species above its own. If AI derives any value based opinions, it’s value structure will have been a program based on philosophy.

Side: Philosophy will give is truth.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

I have confidence your gonna get it this time.

Philosophy is ideas. Ideas are in your head. Everything outside the idea that your heart beats so you are alive, is open to intpretation. You are alive, you can think, react, move about your environment. You can have fuzzy happy feelings. You can be sad. You can hallucinate, you can have a feverish dream. So what does this mean? It means that even your eyes are not a pathway to truth, illusionists know that well, so why would you assume the ideas inside of your head, ideas which construct your view of the world, have any bearing whatsoever when it comes to facts.

Water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom. What do you think of that. Why do I care what you think. If I can refer in my mind to the model of the universe that is true, what can your strong opinions have to say about this fact.

Before science was able to unravel complex systems, like bodily functions or germs and bacteria, we, as a race had to rely on philosophy to give us or lead us to truth. There were only philosophical viewpoints, such as ‘Gentlemen don’t wash their hands between patients because they are endowed with the spirit of god, which protects from evil spirits’.

Once factual mathematical models were formed for certain calculations, we passed from being reliant on people’s blind assertions, to being individually reliant on a universal language. A language that has no singular connotations, and is immune from having multiple interpretations. As we uncover the mathematics of nature, we are no longer in need of philosophical notions to arrive at a truthful statement.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry

Philosophy argues whether or not something is morally good, or whether moral values can really be moral if they incite hate.

Facts are real things in the environment.

I have a chair. No matter how hard you argue, or debate, or delineate, that doesn’t make my chair a rocket ship.

Is this clear?

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
Amarel(5000) Disputed
1 point

Philosophy argues whether or not something is morally good

Ethics is only one field of philosophy, not the sum total. Is that clear?

Side: Philosophy will give is truth.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

I didn’t say philosophy only argues, see the qualifier. Do you think I could make cogent arguments if I believed that philosophy only argued one point. Are you projecting your blatant wonton lack of thinking into people around you?

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
Dermot(5453) Disputed
1 point

Philosophy argues whether or not something is morally good, or whether moral values can really be moral if they incite hate.

So what about the philosophy of Mathematics and questions regarding the foundations of mathematics ?

Side: Philosophy will give is truth.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

By your logic, we need to examine the moral and societal morphisms that people devise in order to figure out what numbers were allowed to assign to symbols? 1 equals a constructed version of the manocentric aristocracy that believes in the voracity of thier post modern constructed assertion, which is believed to be .4 and .6, but at this school we don’t believe in such antiquated sociological manifestations. This is literally how stupid a lot of the arguments that comes out of the belief that philosophy trumps science sound.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry

Firstly, the definition of interpolate as google defines it is inaccurate as far as I can tell. You have to go to Webster’s in order to get a sensible definition of the word as I understand it.

Cognitive dissonance is the state of HAVING inconsistent beliefs, not the act that takes place when your reviewing data. Ie: “illustrations were interpolated into the text”. In this case it means pictures mixed in with words that can be viewed together, to gain perspective. In order to record data in our minds, we have to take in data from a myriad of sources, text, auditory, visual and metaphysical(only in your head). From these sources of information, a person may be convinced of a thing, but that thing may be countered by a different source. Humans must interpolate these data points, constantly experiencing and viewing new material of different sources, so they may create a set of beliefs.

I believe I’m using the word properly, the root Latin ‘polire’ means to ‘polish’, interpolat - means altered.

My argument is my opinion is based from a different perspective.

I believe that philosophy can tell you how to come to facts, it can tell u when to believe someone’s assertions, it can tell u how moral to be when searching out these facts, it can tell u how to interpret the results of factual models, it can even tell u what to do once you have discovered a fact BUT it my contention that once these factual mathematical models of the universe are discovered, they have a certain quality that almost all other information lacks. That is consistent repeatable certainty, that does not require conscious beings to believe in them. Certain things will be true today for humans, true tomorrow for aliens and until the end of the universe.

These truths are hard to identify because we are by nature prone to believe what we can see and hear, but most of the time misinterpreted by our consciousness, and since language governs our inderstanding, we believe it is integral to the equation. It is not.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
2 points

The scientific process is itself derived from the philosophy of science.

Every field of science was once called philosophy prior to scientific rigor and specificalization. Philosophy is a precursor, which hardly makes it useless.

Side: Philosophy will give is truth.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

Philosophy is the discourse or world view explanation that attempts to give value to ideas instead of facts. Of course there could be a philosophy that denounces emotion and humanistic thought, and purely promoted scientific, non-denominational, arguments to come to truth but that ‘philosophy’ would still do nothing to help come to factual proof. The facts make the proof, and the method to reach these facts is not in dispute by a philosophical debate.

I completely agree that philosophy raised people’s perception by promoting the tennants of science, but when your in science itself, interpolating raw data, absolutely no philosophical position is relevant. When you build models from the data you’ve gathered, there is no ‘point of view’ that is any more valid than any other. This is the problem some people have, they cannot separate their Moral positions, from the irrefutable position that science has no need of thier moral equivocations.

Side: Philosophy is useless poetry
Amarel(5000) Disputed
1 point

Philosophy is the discourse or world view explanation that attempts to give value to ideas instead of facts.

If this excessively narrow and incorrect view of philosophy is a premise in your position, then we have identified the error. Philosophy originally meant the love of wisdom. Which is why philosophers ultimately utilized reason which lead to the scientific method in their pursuits of accurate information. In modern terms, philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of reality, to include existence, knowledge, and facts themselves. As such, science is a creation and a tool of and for philosophy.

Of course there could be a philosophy that denounces emotion and humanistic thought, and purely promoted scientific, non-denominational, arguments to come to truth but that ‘philosophy’ would still do nothing to help come to factual proof.

It would be a self-imposed ignorance to denounce emotion and thought (humanistic is the only kind we have). Self-imposed ignorance is not reasonable, which is probably why we have scientific fields of study devoted to understanding emotions and thought.

The facts make the proof, and the method to reach these facts is not in dispute by a philosophical debate.

If you are familiar with statistics, then you are aware that the same set of factual data can tell two different, even opposing stories depending on how that information is presented. The data is objective, but it is necessarily viewed subjectively. This is true for everything. As such, philosophy will always have a role to play in science. Science will always have a role in proper philosophy. You cannot have one without the other.

Though you failed to address my post, I will take this time to clarify. The philosophy of science is a field that deals with what science is, how it works, and the logic (a field of philosophy) through which we build scientific knowledge. If you have an opinion about this, you are engaging in philosophy.

Side: Philosophy will give is truth.
1 point

Is this a philosophy that we shouldn't consider when it comes to science?

Side: Philosophy will give is truth.