I don’t. But apparently you do. Or, more probably, you anticipate no need for any information beyond what is to be gleamed from a science textbook.
#553, this thread:
“Their [scientists] inclusion in an encyclopedia of philosophy does not make them philosophers. Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.
Thought meandering?
You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that it was for “philosophical nonsense.”
#549, this thread:
You disavow any knowledge of philosophers, or of their work, and deny that they have any effect on your thoughts, or on the thoughts of your colleagues. “The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists. Science and philosophy are, as far as I can tell, diametric opposites. Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”
#520, this thread:
“I honestly do not expect the majority of scientists to be aware of the work of even major philosophers, even if those philosophers [referring to Popper, I assume] tried to phrase scientific methodology in the existentialist mumbo-jumbo language of philosophy. Philosophy (the discipline) is almost the antithesis of what science is all about: a very lot of thought exercises, which have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. I have no use for it.”
#506, this thread:
“We don’t delve into the existentialist nonsense that is typical of the subject philosophy.”
”Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?”
Changing the subject (trying to). Need I point out that the “Bad Things” perpetrated by religious people do not excuse the errors (“Bad Things”) of “science people” (re: the Tuskegee Experiment), and do not excuse what happens when “science people” dismiss philosophy as “existentialist nonsense”? It wasn’t Science that caused people to comprehend the horror of the Tuskegee Experiment. Pointing to other people’s dirty underwear doesn’t clean yours. You have declared that you have no use for anything but Science. I have presented examples illustrating this to be a foolish attitude.
“Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less.”
“No more and no less.” In #508, this thread, I observed that you have declared science is so much more than “information gathering” (see #479 & #506, this thread), illustrating your point by describing an ever more sophisticated and elaborate method for gathering information. Admirable, laudatory even, but simply a more sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering.
Now your remarks seem to indicate an attempt to walk it back a little. I rejoice in the change of your view, and that it more closely approaches mine.
Which leads me to again raise the issue; whence comes the ethics of science? Are there any ethics in science? Should there be (re: Tuskegee study)? I thought I caught a glimpse where you denied that an ethics of science existed, just before your post was removed by the Mod. In that case may I bother you, once again, for a reply? Or, was I mistaken?
“I have a sense of morality”
I’ve never doubted for a moment that you do. From whence did it come?
I don’t. But apparently you do. Or, more probably, you anticipate no need for any information beyond what is to be gleamed from a science textbook.
Apparently? Where is the evidence? I don't think you can find any example of my stating that science is a system of morality. Or of my stating that science textbooks (which I rarely read, by the way) are the only source of information. Unless I have specifically stated something, don't assume I think it.
Thought meandering?
You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that it was for “philosophical nonsense.”
Yes, thought meandering. Philosophical thought is only loosely related to logic and not at all based in empirical observation. It begins with a supposition that is fully a product of imagination, and then makes deductions about that supposition that are more-or-less logical extensions of the supposition. I have no use for it, and when I feel a need for fiction, I have a collection of fantasy books that are far more entertaining. I believe that philosophy was, in fact, an attempt at understanding the physical world--but it wasn't up to the task, and left people unsatisfied. The scientific method was developed because of the need for better explanations.
You disavow any knowledge of philosophers, or of their work, and deny that they have any effect on your thoughts, or on the thoughts of your colleagues.
“The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists. Science and philosophy are, as far as I can tell, diametric opposites. Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”
That's assuming a lot. While philosophy was not a subject we studied in the graduate biochemistry program, I am not unaware of it. If I were so completely unaware of philosophy, I wouldn't be able to express such distaste for it. I've had the misfortune of actually having to take a class in philosophy during high school. It clashed with my highly logical, literal, and rational thought processes.
”Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?”
Changing the subject (trying to). Need I point out that the “Bad Things” perpetrated by religious people do not excuse the errors (“Bad Things”) of “science people” (re: the Tuskegee Experiment), and do not excuse what happens when “science people” dismiss philosophy as “existentialist nonsense”? It wasn’t Science that caused people to comprehend the horror of the Tuskegee Experiment. Pointing to other people’s dirty underwear doesn’t clean yours. You have declared that you have no use for anything but Science. I have presented examples illustrating this to be a foolish attitude.
No, I was not doing the equivalent of PeeWee Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" I was trying to point out that, no matter what the nature of the human effort is, whether it is religion, science, concern about the environment, entertainment, capitalism, etc., there are always evil people who use it for their own selfish purposes, regardless of how many others are injured or even killed. The fact that an evil person uses a specific human endeavor for evil purposes does not make the endeavor itself evil. Most human endeavors are moral-neutral.
“Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less.”
“No more and no less.” In #508, this thread, I observed that you have declared science is so much more than “information gathering” (see #479 & #506, this thread), illustrating your point by describing an ever more sophisticated and elaborate method for gathering information. Admirable, laudatory even, but simply a more sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering.
I think you are confusing two different concepts here. Science *is* a tool for describing the physical world. It cannot teach us about ethics, morality, how to improve society, etc. (Although the scientific method can be used to examine those questions...)
But acknowledging that the scientific method is an excellent tool for understanding the physical world around us, and that it is limited to that effort does NOT mean that it is nothing more than a "sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering". No amount of information means anything without analysis. We don't know the structure of an atom because people gathered reams of information. We have, instead, a theory of atomic structure developed because people looked at the information and deduced that only a certain kind of structure could account for the observations. That methodology of taking observations and deducing from them processes that we cannot directly observe, and then making testable predictions based on what we think the processes are, is the heart of science. If you spend your whole life gathering information, and you fill up a warehouse of terabyte size disks with the information you gathered, you are still not engaging in science, because that information by itself is meaningless.
Now your remarks seem to indicate an attempt to walk it back a little. I rejoice in the change of your view, and that it more closely approaches mine.
Not at all. I've expressed consistent views here. My challenge here is finding a way to express those views in such a manner that they are not misinterpreted. People tend to read things that I didn't actually say or imply.
“I have a sense of morality”
I’ve never doubted for a moment that you do. From whence did it come?
Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question. I suspect that it is shaped by a number of factors--societal, familial, religion, etc.--and that some aspects of morality are not shaped by one's environment, but are hardwired into the brain. As an extreme example, psychopaths have no sense of morality as it affects other people; if they live within the law, it is because adhering to the law benefits them. There is evidence to support the view that psychopaths are born, not made.