Support NeoGAF

[DryvBy]

umm

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a god. Science is based on the evaluation of scientific evidence. It is obviously not the case for everyone, but it is easy to understand why more scientists would be atheists compared to the general public.

Not sure what is unclear...

See how this chart that was posted a few minutes ago shows 33% of scientist believing in a god? So there's some "scientific evidence" that some people, statistically, believe in a god. But according to the internet, it's "religion or science" when it very well can be both or in some rare cases, neither.

If you don't know, just don't answer.

 

[hym]

I wouldn't really call politicians religious though. More of a sales guy that knows his customer?

Religious doesn't mean you actually believe what you say, it implies the manner of conduct and how they publicly rationalize decisions. I for one am convinced that the majority of rational people that describe themselves as Religious are really people that give into peer pressure and inside feel no spiritual connection whatsoever but they will never admit it to any soul because they value acceptance above everything else, I do not blame them for that, it's a human flaw.

Atheist Christians http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362

When you make something acceptable they come out of the woodwork.

 

[archnemesis]

Religious scientists obviously don't apply the scientific method to their religious beliefs. That was amtentori was trying to point out.

 

[DryvBy]

Religious doesn't mean you actually believe what you say, it implies the manner of conduct and how they publicly rationalize decisions. I for one am convinced that the majority of rational people that describe themselves as Religious are really people that give into peer pressure and inside feel no spiritual connection whatsoever but they will never admit it to any soul because they value acceptance above everything else, I do not blame them for that, it's a human flaw.

Atheist Christians http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362

When you make something acceptable they come out of the woodwork.

Man, I didn't inherit that flaw. I hate the application we put in for "acceptance". If you don't like who I am or what I believe, cool, move on and we'll part ways. I have no need to be accepted by people at work, school, or even in my family.

Religious scientists obviously don't apply the scientific method to their religious beliefs. That was amtentori was trying to point out.

Does he have proof of this? How could they keep their jobs if they disregard solid evidence?

 

[archnemesis]

Does he have proof of this? How could they keep their jobs if they disregard solid evidence?

Scientists are experts in very narrow fields. They can be completely ignorant on subjects outside of their expertise. With compartmentalization they can prevent their personal beliefs to be scrutinized in the same way as their research.

Also, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

 

[Dice]

“I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. “There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. 36“Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”

Which would imply that the world is not flat, as he seems to be describing these things taking place over different timezones (People working, People sleeping) which in turn would not be possible with a flat earth. (Feel free to challenge me on that)

I would challenge your theology on that. The Olivet discourse was about the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, not some ridiculous notion of a rapture. The church was by and large in agreement on this until some little girl had a vision and they built a whole new theology on that (dispensationalism) which never made sense and has been breaking apart and reformatting ever since. Evidence for a proper interpretation is right in the same passage.

34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

 

[DryvBy]

Scientists are experts in a very narrow fields. They can be completely ignorant on subjects outside of their expertise. With compartmentalization they can prevent their personal beliefs to be scrutinized in the same way as their research.

So... no. We actually don't have any evidence of this. Just words and other words from other people that conform to certain beliefs about what people do and think. I mean, wasn't even the Big Bang theory created by a Catholic priest if I remember right?

That's a small box we're putting people in. Religious people = goofy. Atheist = scientist. Or whatever is going on.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Science provides knowledge. Religion does not.

 

[hym]

Man, I didn't inherit that flaw. I hate the application we put in for "acceptance". If you don't like who I am or what I believe, cool, move on and we'll part ways. I have no need to be accepted by people at work, school, or even in my family.

That's because loneliness hasn't hurt you yet, if it does one day and by all means I hope for you it never does, you might regret not having the ability to shift yourself to appeal more to others. Majority of people should come with this innate ability since we evolved in social groups, if we were all born rebels that questioned every established idea we would have gone nowhere fast.

So... no. We actually don't have any evidence of this. Just words and other words from other people that conform to certain beliefs about what people do and think. I mean, wasn't even the Big Bang theory created by a Catholic priest if I remember right?

That's a small box we're putting people in. Religious people = goofy. Atheist = scientist. Or whatever is going on.

Evidence that scientists don't apply their scientific critical thinking to their religion? I guess you would have to ask all the formerly religious now atheist scientists. I don't think it matters a great deal especially with Religions that have figured out how to co-exist with science, like Catholics, sure we all remember their glory days of the imprisonment of Galileo but they obviously learned from those errors, something other Churches may never do because they aren't in a position in which their opinion actually causes damage to science.

I don't see anyone putting anything in boxes, atheist doesn't mean smart, and religious doesn't mean dumb.

 

[Dice]

So... no. We actually don't have any evidence of this. Just words and other words from other people that conform to certain beliefs about what people do and think. I mean, wasn't even the Big Bang theory created by a Catholic priest if I remember right?

That's a small box we're putting people in. Religious people = goofy. Atheist = scientist. Or whatever is going on.

All he's saying is that they don't have to apply the scientific method to their beliefs if what they study doesn't comprehensively deconstruct their religion. For example, I have a Christian friend who is a chemist. With work on things like "Substituted Phenols with Nitrogen Oxide Radicals" how is she going to accidentally refute the supernatural resurrection of Christ to herself? Not to mention that "belief in God" doesn't automatically mean the person is Christian. There are plenty of Indian scientists who would affirm that but their definition of God is much different and the claims of their religion much less strictly required for survival compared to Christianity.

 

[Devolution]

Scientists are experts in a very narrow fields. They can be completely ignorant on subjects outside of their expertise. With compartmentalization they can prevent their personal beliefs to be scrutinized in the same way as their research.

Also, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Or they can just believe that god set everything in motion and we're just figuring out the rules.

 

[iapetus]

Well I'm glad for this, thank you.

Here was me thinking ancient folk still thought the earth was flat.

It's a common misconception. As Wikipedia points out: "In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history."

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Science provides knowledge. Religion does not.

This is correct.
Even in terms of the "Why?"-questions, philosophy has a better chance at giving you a meaning of life rather than the rather simplistic religious answer of "God loves you, you will go to heaven, then it will all be bliss".

 

[Spinluck]

Science provides knowledge. Religion does not.

I disagree with this.

I'd say Science provides facts. Religion does not.

I think it fits better.

 

[Air]

See how this chart that was posted a few minutes ago shows 33% of scientist believing in a god? So there's some "scientific evidence" that some people, statistically, believe in a god. But according to the internet, it's "religion or science" when it very well can be both or in some rare cases, neither.

If you don't know, just don't answer.

That's a weird chart. Some say they don't believe in god but believe in a higher power or spirit. Isn't that God (or pantheism/ panentheism)? What a weird poll.

Also anybody saying its either or is just being confrontational and usually has an agenda. You don't have to pay too much attention to that.

 

[Mario]

I disagree with this.

I'd say Science provides facts. Religion does not.

I think it fits better.

Hmmm "facts" are akin to "observations" in the scientific method, and are used to establish more powerful and meaningful "theories". Facts in and of themselves for example have no predictive capability, while theories do.

You might be better off saying "science provides explanations, religion does not".

 

[KtSlime]

That's a weird chart. Some say they don't believe in god but believe in a higher power or spirit. Isn't that God (or pantheism/ panentheism)? What a weird poll.

Also anybody saying its either or is just being confrontational and usually has an agenda. You don't have to pay too much attention to that.

They probably use the term so as to not have it confused by others with the bronze age sky daddy who punishes people for using their brains.

 

[Air]

They probably use the term so as to not have it confused by others with the bronze age sky daddy who punishes people for using their brains.

That's what I figured, but even so, wouldn't the question 'do you believe in a higher power' suffice. Anyway I don't really think it matters too much. Just thought it a little weird.

 

[Erigu]

That's what I figured, but even so, wouldn't the question 'do you believe in a higher power' suffice..

I guess there's a bit of difference between believing there is a universal spirit / higher power and believing it's the Christian-God-as-told-in-the-Bible or, perhaps a bit more more generally, a higher power that cares very much about us because we're its favorite creation and totally the center of the universe...

 

[Spinluck]

Hmmm "facts" are akin to "observations" in the scientific method, and are used to establish more powerful and meaningful "theories". Facts in and of themselves for example have no predictive capability, while theories do.

You might be better off saying "science provides explanations, religion does not".

I guess that's also better than "knowledge".

While I'm not religious, I do think there's a lot you can learn from it. Even though religion completely throws science out of the window in favor of morality.

 

[KtSlime]

I guess that's also better than "knowledge".

While I'm not religious, I do think there's a lot you can learn from it. Even though religion completely throws science out of the window in favor of morality.

I don't practice Neoplatonism, but doesn't stop me from finding thought provoking ideas in the writings. There is a lot one can learn from literature, we (as a species) just need to move beyond believing what is written as literal.

 

[televator]

I guess that's also better than "knowledge".

While I'm not religious, I do think there's a lot you can learn from it. Even though religion completely throws science out of the window in favor of morality.

Dubious morality at that.

 

[Spinluck]

I don't practice Neoplatonism, but doesn't stop me from finding thought provoking ideas in the writings. There is a lot one can learn from literature, we (as a species) just need to move beyond believing what is written as literal.

Dubious morality at that.

Eh, it's something though. Lol.

Right now in one of my classes we're delving into the history and teachings of Buddhism.
It is some interesting stuff. Not as black and white, and you're going to hellish as Christianity.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I guess that's also better than "knowledge".

While I'm not religious, I do think there's a lot you can learn from it. Even though religion completely throws science out of the window in favor of morality.

If we put philosophy in the science camp, then science K.O's religion out of the ring!

 

[cutmeamango]

If we put philosophy in the science camp, then science K.O's religion out of the ring!

No squiddy! Bad squiddy!

 

[archnemesis]

I like this definition of philosophy that Bertrand Russell uses in the introductory to A History of Western Philosophy.

"Philosophy... is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation."

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Well, I claim it in the name of science anyway.
I offer everything related to newage to the religion-camp.

 

[Dice]

Philosophy is the sewage processing facility of the cognitive realm. When all the relevant good of something has been sucked out of something, some asshole likes to join at the end and go "but then what..." and philosophical musings come out. Then, philosophers, being rather strange individuals and/or people who had no other option, collect all this shit and together try to process it it into something that has potential to be productive. And it can be, but only to people who like handling this unpleasant manure they output trying to figure out how to make it do something useful, which they can't really in a direct sense, but it does kind of happen naturally if it has contact with their project. Of course, then what comes to fruition is dependent on the person who was using it. It could be something beneficial, something worthless, something addictive, something poisonous, something hallucinogenic, or the same old junk nearly everyone is developing.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Some philosophical concepts only really make sense if you're in the mindset of philosophy after having learned the philosophical way of thinking.
I wonder if one can really criticize some of the philosophical concepts or tenets, as one need to learn philosophy in order to create critique applicable within philosophy - but the process of learning it will neuter your critique as it now has to be expressed in a line of reasoning that is inherently making it hard to critique certain core tenets.

 

[berg ark]

Of course philosphy is run on speculations, observations etc. Just like science philosophy can't figure out eternal facts, you can only reason by logic based on observations and the laws of logic.

But this doesn't give one a reason to compare philosophy to theology, just because philosphy can't prove any real "facts"... the only real facts which we can observe is stuff like 2 + 2 = 4. Thence philosophy is very much like science. Theology on the other hand, studies the eternal and complete.

 

[Mario]

Theology on the other hand, studies the eternal and complete.

What do you mean by "eternal" and "complete" in this context?

 

[berg ark]

What do you mean by "eternal" and "complete" in this context?

In the context of science and knowledge. Whilst philosophy could be argued that it fits in the group of sciences that contribute to knowledge theology on the other hand has not. It restudies the same text and hans't made any progress in the field of knowledge. Many people often bunch up philosophy and theology in the same group, and this I oppose, I think philosophy is tightly related to the other sciences and theology on its own is in a whole other field.

 

[Mario]

In the context of science and knowledge. Whilst philosophy could be argued that it fits in the group of sciences that contribute to knowledge theology on the other hand has not. It restudies the same text and hans't made any progress in the field of knowledge. Many people often bunch up philosophy and theology in the same group, and this I oppose, I think philosophy is tightly related to the other sciences and theology on its own is in a whole other field.

I'm not sure you answered my question (if you did, I didn't understand it).

What do "eternal" and "complete" refer to? Eternal what? Complete what?

 

[V_Arnold]

The day philosophy is deemed "useless" (or more importantly: banned!) is the day when I can finally say that yes, the WORST times have finally came into our collective house, instead of just sitting in our doorstep.

Absolutely terrifying.

 

[berg ark]

I'm not sure you answered my question (if you did, I didn't understand it).

What do "eternal" and "complete" refer to? Eternal what? Complete what?

There is no room for exploration. There are a certain set of rules which one could do research on, but it's a confined world. You are set by boundaries such as the number of scripts and texts. Sure, interpretations are great, but my point was that it lacks the exploration which the other sciences do consist of.

 

[Mario]

There is no room for exploration. There are a certain set of rules which one could do research on, but it's a confined world. You are set by boundaries such as the number of scripts and texts. Sure, interpretations are great, but my point was that it lacks the exploration which the other sciences do consist of.

Ah, unchanging and finite source material.

 

[berg ark]

Ah, unchanging and finite source material.

More or less, which in my opinion limits theologies possibilites to claim it be a real science or a subject worth studying at all, for that matter. Which is also why it always irritates me when people bunch philosophy and theology into the same "field" or at least category - I think there is a vast difference.

 

[Vaporak]

Philosophy is the sewage processing facility of the cognitive realm. When all the relevant good of something has been sucked out of something, some asshole likes to join at the end and go "but then what..." and philosophical musings come out. Then, philosophers, being rather strange individuals and/or people who had no other option, collect all this shit and together try to process it it into something that has potential to be productive. And it can be, but only to people who like handling this unpleasant manure they output trying to figure out how to make it do something useful, which they can't really in a direct sense, but it does kind of happen naturally if it has contact with their project. Of course, then what comes to fruition is dependent on the person who was using it. It could be something beneficial, something worthless, something addictive, something poisonous, something hallucinogenic, or the same old junk nearly everyone is developing.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and probably letting bad experiences with internet "philosophy" get an emotional response out of you.

 

[Dice]

You have no idea what you're talking about, and probably letting bad experiences with internet "philosophy" get an emotional response out of you.

I have two good friends going for doctorates in philosophy. They have guided me all around the field over the years. If you have problems with what I said, explain them. Do not bring up my statements, which would pass away on their own, only to count me, not merely those statements, as worthless to any philosophical discussion. It's incredibly rude and says far more about you than it does me.

 

[iapetus]

If you have problems with what I said, explain them.

Well, what you said is a bit... content-light, to put it politely.

 

[Chaplain]

Two debates that some might find interesting:

Does God Exist? (Michael Shermer vs John Lennox)

Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God?

Oxford Museum of Natural History hosts this fascinating and controversial debate on the existence of God. Professor John Lennox explains how science points to an intelligent creator and Richard Dawkins offers a counterargument.

 

[Earthstrike]

Philosophy is the sewage processing facility of the cognitive realm. When all the relevant good of something has been sucked out of something, some asshole likes to join at the end and go "but then what..." and philosophical musings come out. Then, philosophers, being rather strange individuals and/or people who had no other option, collect all this shit and together try to process it it into something that has potential to be productive. And it can be, but only to people who like handling this unpleasant manure they output trying to figure out how to make it do something useful, which they can't really in a direct sense, but it does kind of happen naturally if it has contact with their project. Of course, then what comes to fruition is dependent on the person who was using it. It could be something beneficial, something worthless, something addictive, something poisonous, something hallucinogenic, or the same old junk nearly everyone is developing.

How philosophical of you.

 

[Dice]

Well, what you said is a bit... content-light, to put it politely.

Exactly. It was only a lighthearted analogy expressive of my taste for philosophy, so I don't know why someone would bother attacking me rather than ignoring it. The statements in it are pretty basic but I can make them clearer.

1) Philosophy develops at the ends of knowledge, where most people dispose of it because its usefulness is not easily found.

2) Finding the usefulness in it is unpleasant work for most, since the slowness of becoming applicable is similar to scientific study but unlike science there is nothing tangible and it applies cognitively, not naturally like developing a new material or something. Yet philosophers take on the burden. Many people find them strange for committing so much effort to something without immediately apparent worth or applicability.

3) What their efforts create does end up applying to all of society in one way or another, often being a foundational element of social growth and directing mankind on the paths they end up taking. Despite this effect which is found useful, most people who use it to assist their developments don't really understand how it does.

I don't see how those are untrue. If it was not appreciated because I was essentially calling it shit, there isn't much to be done, I guess. Shit does have its role in the world, but that doesn't make it pleasant, and the point of the analogy was to express that personal feeling about it while acknowledging its role and worth. Having to explain it like this just destroyed all the fun in that. :/

 

[10dollas]

Exactly. It was only a lighthearted analogy expressive of my taste for philosophy, so I don't know why someone would bother attacking me rather than ignoring it. The statements in it are pretty basic but I can make them clearer.

1) Philosophy develops at the ends of knowledge, where most people dispose of it because its usefulness is not easily found.

2) Finding the usefulness in it is unpleasant work for most, since the slowness of becoming applicable is similar to scientific study but unlike science there is nothing tangible and it applies cognitively, not naturally like developing a new material or something. Yet philosophers take on the burden. Many people find them strange for committing so much effort to something without immediately apparent worth or applicability.

3) What their efforts create does end up applying to all of society in one way or another, often being a foundational element of social growth and directing mankind on the paths they end up taking. Despite this effect which is found useful, most people who use it to assist their developments don't really understand how it does.

I don't see how those are untrue. If it was not appreciated because I was essentially calling it shit, there isn't much to be done, I guess. Shit does have its role in the world, but that doesn't make it pleasant, and the point of the analogy was to express that personal feeling about it while acknowledging its role and worth. Having to explain it like this just destroyed all the fun in that. :/

So you admit some of the usefulness of philosophy (while leaving out other benefits there of), but simultaneously slander philosophy because its not easily accessible to you. Sounds like your lambasting of philosophy has more to do with your personal prejudices rather than with the merits of philosophy itself.

 

[iapetus]

Exactly. It was only a lighthearted analogy expressive of my taste for philosophy, so I don't know why someone would bother attacking me rather than ignoring it. The statements in it are pretty basic but I can make them clearer.

These statements weren't really in it as such; let's take a look at them now you've separated them from the ad hominem dreck.

1) Philosophy develops at the ends of knowledge, where most people dispose of it because its usefulness is not easily found.

Still pretty content-light. Philosophy 'develops at the ends of knowledge' in what way? You seem to imply that philosophy comes about after all the knowledge has been extracted from a field. That's clearly not true, given philosophy's history. Perhaps you mean at the margins of knowledge, where we don't know things for certain. But then the same applies to science.

Its usefulness is not easily found? At some level, something that can be regarded as philosophy underpins most of our society. Our judicial system is based on moral philosophy. Hell, the scientific method fits into the category of scientific philosophy. What we refer to these days as 'science' was once known as Natural Philosophy. Formal logic has its origins in philosophy. If you think philosophy hasn't been pretty fucking useful (and very obviously so) across the ages then that can only come from a position of ignorance.

2) Finding the usefulness in it is unpleasant work for most, since the slowness of becoming applicable is similar to scientific study but unlike science there is nothing tangible and it applies cognitively, not naturally like developing a new material or something. Yet philosophers take on the burden. Many people find them strange for committing so much effort to something without immediately apparent worth or applicability.

Which is really saying the same thing again (oh, but philosophy isn't useful and most people can't see any use for it at all!) - debunked by the same arguments.

3) What their efforts create does end up applying to all of society in one way or another, often being a foundational element of social growth and directing mankind on the paths they end up taking. Despite this effect which is found useful, most people who use it to assist their developments don't really understand how it does.

Here you're spinning wildly in circles. Where previously you said philosophy's usefulness was hard to find, now you're saying it's often fundamental to our society and the future of mankind. And you're claiming that people who use it don't understand it? I guess you might be right at the same level that you could claim computers are worthless because most people who use them don't understand them. Beyond that, less so. Philosophy is a wide and well-studied field, and you can bet that most of the people actively applying it understand it a lot better than you seem to.

 

[Dice]

slander philosophy
lambasting of philosophy
your personal prejudices

Am I restricted to either being in love with something or trashing on it? Do you understand what personal taste is? Why are you trying so hard to make an enemy of me when I realized people were misunderstanding my tone/attitude and clarified that it was a lighthearted analogy? Do you always make it a point to demonize others who don't love what you love?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I think we need a philosophy OT.
I got a couple of philosophy related questions, and wouldn't mind an informative thread where I could learn the basics.

 

[Dice]

Perhaps you mean at the margins of knowledge, where we don't know things for certain.

Yes, this is why I said "ends" and not "end."

But then the same applies to science.

But the nature of it is only truly similar when you get into quantum physics and such. Otherwise philosophy is much more an exercise in concept and theory. Science is more about direct analysis of tangible things to find the nature of things. The only proposed "oughts" in science are when they lay beyond our current means of observation, otherwise that hypothetical stage is rather short before we jump into testing it. Philosophy does test, but it is not direct, as physical interactions with reality, so it is more elusive.

Its usefulness is not easily found? At some level, something that can be regarded as philosophy underpins most of our society. Our judicial system is based on moral philosophy. Hell, the scientific method fits into the category of scientific philosophy. What we refer to these days as 'science' was once known as Natural Philosophy. Formal logic has its origins in philosophy. If you think philosophy hasn't been pretty fucking useful (and very obviously so) across the ages then that can only come from a position of ignorance.

Again, this is reading much into what I said rather than looking at what I said. Your point here is acknowledged in my 3rd point, so what could I mean by this? My analogy was clear about what stage of the overall process I meant this to be referring to. I was talking about the exploration of new areas and questions. Finding that meaning in certainty to then apply to life is no easy task, which is why few are philosophers and why those who work out useful philosophical works are highly regarded.

Which is really saying the same thing again (oh, but philosophy isn't useful and most people can't see any use for it at all!) - debunked by the same arguments.

Here you're spinning wildly in circles. Where previously you said philosophy's usefulness was hard to find, now you're saying it's often fundamental to our society and the future of mankind. And you're claiming that people who use it don't understand it? I guess you might be right at the same level that you could claim computers are worthless because most people who use them don't understand them. Beyond that, less so. Philosophy is a wide and well-studied field, and you can bet that most of the people actively applying it understand it a lot better than you seem to.

These portions of your post are coming from the same misunderstanding as to what I was referring to with the "usefulness is not easily found" bit. I will clarify again that I was referring to the frontiers of philosophy, which is the focus of philosophical study. If you bring the kinds of questions being asked there to the general population, most people would be like "Who cares? Why does it matter?" and this sentiment towards philosophers is very common so I don't understand why this point would even be contested. The usefulness of their work is hard to find, but they are finding it, and when they do find it, it applies to all of society. This was my statement from the start and I think it is easy to see that. Why or how you guys started reading it as an attempt to discredit the field when I acknowledged its usefulness from the start, I do not know.

That said, thank you for addressing my statements as you understood them, rather than just addressing your understanding of a supposed agenda you may have assumed me to have. It was a refreshingly adult-mannered confrontation.

 

[iapetus]

Yes, this is why I said "ends" and not "end."

Then maybe you shouldn't have said "When all the relevant good of something has been sucked out of something, some asshole likes to join at the end" which strongly suggests the other interpretation.

But the nature of it is only truly similar when you get into quantum physics and such. Otherwise philosophy is much more an exercise in concept and theory. Science is more about direct analysis of tangible things to find the nature of things. The only proposed "oughts" in science are when they lay beyond our current means of observation, otherwise that hypothetical stage is rather short before we jump into testing it. Philosophy does test, but it is not direct, as physical interactions with reality, so it is more elusive.

Again, only true of some parts of philosophy. Your issue appears to be that science is concerned largely (or entirely) with the measurable and predictable (yes, quantum theory is a wrinkle in that definition, but large-scale results of quantum effects are predictable, at least statistically), and philosophy often encompasses things that aren't. That doesn't make it inherently less important or useful, though.

These portions of your post are coming from the same misunderstanding as to what I was referring to with the "usefulness is not easily found" bit. I will clarify again that I was referring to the frontiers of philosophy, which is the focus of philosophical study.

There are plenty of areas focussed on in philosophical study, and plenty of them are not at the 'frontiers of philosophy', whatever you want that to mean. Plenty of them have very concrete applications, too, in ethics, game theory, and the suchlike.

If you bring the kinds of questions being asked there to the general population, most people would be like "Who cares? Why does it matter?" and this sentiment towards philosophers is very common so I don't understand why this point would even be contested.

They would say exactly the same thing about questions on the frontiers of scientific research. Most people, believe it or not, aren't terribly excited by the Higgs boson, for example, and don't see how what impact it will have on their day-to-day life.

Why or how you guys started reading it as an attempt to discredit the field when I acknowledged its usefulness from the start, I do not know.

... sewage ... some asshole ... strange individuals and/or people who had no other option ... unpleasant manure ... something worthless, something addictive, something poisonous, something hallucinogenic ...

You really can't imagine how your tone comes across as quite negative towards philosophy? Really?

 

[10dollas]

Am I restricted to either being in love with something or trashing on it? Do you understand what personal taste is? Why are you trying so hard to make an enemy of me when I realized people were misunderstanding my tone/attitude and clarified that it was a lighthearted analogy? Do you always make it a point to demonize others who don't love what you love?

False dichotomy, strawman, putting words in my mouth and so on...

You're not the only one that likes to use colorful impactful words lightheartedly. Since this is a religion thread: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

One of the many values to philosophy is that of the many theories offered, while none are conclusive they do offer new & less erroneous ways of thinking about certain subjects. For instance, here's a relevant example: Communication is ambiguous, vague, obscure, and thus frequently misinterpreted. Various philosophers of the linguistic discipline have proposed that meaning resides not only within the words themselves, but in tone, context, word order and so on (pragmatics, syntax, etc). So when one reads a sentence, perhaps it is wise not to assume you understand what the writer is saying automatically by the literal meaning of the words themselves, but perhaps (s)he may have a miscommunicated or obscured intention. I'm not a mind reader, and I can only respond to how i best interpret what you have written. When you use powerful words like you did, you're more likely going to invite stronger responses. You reap what you sow. But I'm often guilty of the aforementioned things aswell, so no hard feelings.