When does philosophy become drivel and why?

[TheFifthElement]

That sums up everything about philosophy.

It produces no results.

And hence it's a pointless exercise.

It has taken 2000 years of this pointless excerise to realise that it's a pointless exercise!

Well, you could say the same thing about quantum physics and cosmology. Quantum physics brings no 'results' only probabilities. And in cosmology in the absence of a better explanation they're not adverse to inventing something that makes the theories fit together even though there's no evidence that the invented thing exists - like dark matter for example, or dark energy.

But I digress. Philosophical questions can lead to a greater understanding of the world around us, but when that happens the 'result' is absorbed into a more specific subject and is no longer 'philosophy'.

For example, Bertrand Russell once wrote about the problems of philosophy and asked a question: "what makes a table a table?". As a common thinking human being you might answer that it is an object with a flat surface on top of 3 or 4 legs. But this can also be the description of a chair, so what makes a chair a chair and a table a table? It seems a simple problem, but it is not.

This kind of thinking is now used in advanced robotics to help understand how to programme robots to recognise objects. So what was once a 'philosophical' question now serves some useful function. The 'philosophical' question, when answered will generally fall outside the realms of philosophy and more properly into something else. Which is why philosophy is filled with questions, not results.

Perhaps, as the Athiest said, there is a fine line between what is philosophy and what is critical thinking.

Then there are other philosophers such as John Stuart Mill whose philosophies still have an impact on those of us living in Britain today. Aristotle Godfather of the scientific method and let's not forget good old Nietzsche creator of the Ubermensch and the fallout that ensued therefrom.

That philosophy encourages something other than textbook thinking, I think is a good thing.

I think, therefore it is

[Lote-Tree]

Well, you could say the same thing about quantum physics and cosmology. Quantum physics brings no 'results' only probabilities.

A probability calculation is still a calculation. A result ;-) As result of this you have computers and your ipods and ipads.

And in cosmology in the absence of a better explanation they're not adverse to inventing something that makes the theories fit together even though there's no evidence that the invented thing exists - like dark matter for example, or dark energy.

Scientific Hypothesis are nothing like philosophies.

Philosophical questions can lead to a greater understanding of the world around us

No. Science does this. 2000 years of philosophical quest did not discover penicilin or microbes and bacteria.

but when that happens the 'result' is absorbed into a more specific subject and is no longer 'philosophy'.

Philosophy produced no result to be "absorbed" into.

For example, Bertrand Russell once wrote about the problems of philosophy and asked a question: "what makes a table a table?". As a common thinking human being you might answer that it is an object with a flat surface on top of 3 or 4 legs. But this can also be the description of a chair, so what makes a chair a chair and a table a table? It seems a simple problem, but it is not.

This all boils down to analysis of language. What a climb down for Philosophy!

That philosophy encourages something other than textbook thinking, I think is a good thing.

Philosophy encourages you to waste time on pointless things like what is a chair!

I think, therefore it is

And science has shown there is no such think as "I think". We do our "Thinking" with all our body.

Philosophy is like a blind person trying to cross a busy motorway with the power of his thought alone.

As you can see it's an arrogant approach. No wonder philosophy has been reduced to just analysing language ;-)

[TheFifthElement]

I have missed you Lote

A probability calculation is still a calculation. A result ;-) As result of this you have computers and your ipods and ipads.

Computers predate quantum theory. The two are not linked.

Quantum theory doesn't give results. You ask a: "does light travel in a straight line?". Quantum theory states, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It might do, it might not. We can't say what it actually will do. No more certain than when you started.

No. Science does this. 2000 years of philosophical quest did not discover penicilin or microbes and bacteria.

Philosophy invented science. Thus philosophy did discover penicilin and microbes and bacteria. Without philosophy there would be no science. You need to study your history more By this you might have realised that philosophy has been around for more than 2000 years.

This all boils down to analysis of language. What a climb down for Philosophy!

Analysis of language is a part of philisophy and has always been. There's nothing debasing about that. Language is an important tool for sharing ideas, is it not? But philosophy has many angles - philosophy of science, language, logic, metaphysics, politics, economics, mathematics, ethics, and so on.

I think it is strange to call philosophy arrogant. Philosophy asks us to challenge what we think we 'know'. It is as arrogant as the wide eyed child asking 'why?'

[paradoxical]

Can you explain to me what problems science can't answer, and also note why they're important?

I believe it is painfully obvious that there are many problems science can't answer: Is there an afterlife? Who, or what created the universe? Consider ethical questions regarding capital punishment, abortion, or ending life support. Science can tell us exactly what will happen when the victim is given a lethal injection, but cannot tell us if it is right or wrong to execute prisoners or to "pull the plug" on someone's life support.

I'm quite certain science can, but that's by the by, really.

Can you display where Philosophy can help with one real world problem?

Provide some evidence.

Please see above. By the way, you never did explain why The Republic is "rubbish".

Science can tell us with 100% accuracy why we're born and die.

As to "why the universe exists" and some mythical "meaning of life", some people think they're important questions. I consider them to be worthless, because science has shown to my satisfaction that there is no answer - there is no "why", there just is.

Maybe if people were able to accept the meaninglessness of it all, they'd spend less time asking "Why?"

Well, if we were to believe a priori that such questions are worthless and that all is meaningless, then there would be no need for philosophy or critical thinking of any kind. However, such is not the case and it is not very scientific to believe that there is "no why, there just is." Nothing in the natural world "just is", everything is the result of something else. Why would the universe be any different?

It will repeatedly show that the same portion of the brain is used in each individual class of quale and that different people will use the exact same bit of the brain every time for the same quale. (Except in brain damage cases)


Because our eyes evolved to work as they do.

And how is this not materialist philosophy again?

[The Atheist]

I believe it is painfully obvious that there are many problems science can't answer: Is there an afterlife?

Science has answered that quite adequately, and the answer is "no".

Anyone can ask pointless questions, but that doesn't make it philosophy. You may as well ask what colour "3" is.

Who, or what created the universe?

While science hasn't answered that question fully, it will do, and fairly soon, I imagine.

On the other hand, what progress has philosophy made?

Thanks to science we know what the universe is made up of, how the different bits of it react in relation to each other and how it is likely to behave in the future.

Philosophy has given not one single thing to our understanding of the universe.

Consider ethical questions regarding capital punishment, abortion, or ending life support. Science can tell us exactly what will happen when the victim is given a lethal injection, but cannot tell us if it is right or wrong to execute prisoners or to "pull the plug" on someone's life support.

Again, if philosophy could answer any of them, you might have a point.

I already noted that the "greatest good" is clearly the one successful philosophy we can use, and science can happily take it from there.

Please see above. By the way, you never did explain why The Republic is "rubbish".

Because it's wrong in every material respect.

Well, if we were to believe a priori that such questions are worthless and that all is meaningless, then there would be no need for philosophy or critical thinking of any kind.

No, we need the critical thinking to enable science to show which questions are immaterial and which are not.

However, such is not the case and it is not very scientific to believe that there is "no why, there just is." Nothing in the natural world "just is", everything is the result of something else. Why would the universe be any different?

Now, I can understand old Tommy Aquinas not understanding, but not everything requires a reason.

As uranium 238 decays, electrons are released at completely random atoms.

Some things do "just happen".

It's like asking why abiogenesis happened on earth. We will probably never know beyond the fact that it did happen, and it's actually of no importance whatsoever.

And how is this not materialist philosophy again?

Sure, you can say that, but once we've decided that the universe is real and that materialism is the appropriate form of philosophical enquiry, there isn't any room for further philosophy, which means it is irrelevant.

[OrphanPip]

Computers predate quantum theory. The two are not linked.

Quantum theory doesn't give results. You ask a: "does light travel in a straight line?". Quantum theory states, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It might do, it might not. We can't say what it actually will do. No more certain than when you started.

This isn't true. Quantum mechanics can't tell you where an electron will be with 100% certainty to a single point, however it can tell you probabilities in difference spaces giving you roughly a small area where the electron is likely to be.

Our modern understanding of electronics, magnetism, the particle-wave duality of light are all dependent on quantum theory. You need quantum theory to explain how photosynthesis works, you need quantum theory to understand why metal emits light when heated, you need quantum theory to understand the 3D structure of complex molecules, and you need quantum theory to understand how matter works at the subatomic level. You need to understand quantum mechanics to build lasers, microchips and many other machines that operate with photons and subatomic particles.

Also, quantum theory predates the computer by nearly 100 years. It began in the 19th century and by the 1920s it was already the dominant trend in physics.

Moreover, science did not "invent" dark matter. Physicist inferred dark matter must exist, and from that we are able to make predictions which prove accurate in testing, which strengthens the inference.

[paradoxical]

Science has answered that quite adequately, and the answer is "no".

Anyone can ask pointless questions, but that doesn't make it philosophy. You may as well ask what colour "3" is.

When you make such statements, I fear that you are being disingenuous. Or perhaps you do not see any merit in this discussion. When did science prove there is no afterlife? Exactly how did science determine that? Provide evidence. That is like saying that science has proven there is no God.

I believe that the vast majority of people would disagree when you say that such a question is pointless and I imagine that most people would consider the question of life after death or the existence of God to be among the most important questions, if not the most important questions, facing humanity.

While science hasn't answered that question fully, it will do, and fairly soon, I imagine.

On the other hand, what progress has philosophy made?

Thanks to science we know what the universe is made up of, how the different bits of it react in relation to each other and how it is likely to behave in the future.

Philosophy has given not one single thing to our understanding of the universe.

Actually, we know very little about the universe. Scientists cannot even agree on how the universe was created, much less explain the fact that, as TheFifthElement mentioned, up to 75% of the universe is made up of so-called dark energy and dark matter. The sum of all the known matter in the universe is much less then the amount the Big Bang would have created. Also, science cannot explain the mysterious Dark Flow, which seems to suggest that some structure outside of the universe is pulling on matter in the known universe, nor can science determine if the universe will expand forever or collapse in on itself.

The reason I am mentioning these things is to point out that -- despite our arrogance -- we cannot fully explain the mysterious nature of the world we inhabit. Science makes progress, only to have something else come up that shows just how little we know. Similar to the way science will cure a disease, only to have another, more deadly disease crop up. Now, I have nothing against science. I think it is very important and has done much good in the world and, while I believe that there are limits to human understanding, I also believe that science has greatly contributed to our understanding of the world. That being the case, I wonder why you refuse to admit that philosophy has contributed to our understanding of the world? Do you feel that art and literature has contributed to our understanding of the world? If so, then why not philosophy?

Again, if philosophy could answer any of them, you might have a point.

So you at least admit that science cannot answer these questions? Indeed, what else could we use other then philosophy or religion to answer these questions? I believe that the Existentialists, as well as philosophers such as Marx, Kant, Spinoza, or Descartes -- to name only a few -- would have much to say about these subjects. Even Socrates or Aristotle. The law is based on philosophy; why would philosophy not be able to answer these questions?

Because it's wrong in every material respect.

So, that's it? You dismiss Plato's The Republic as rubbish and, when asked to explain, simply state that it's wrong in every material respect? I imagine if I did the same with Origin of the Species or the work of Richard Dawkins, you would not accept that.

It's like asking why abiogenesis happened on earth. We will probably never know beyond the fact that it did happen, and it's actually of no importance whatsoever.

Well, I suppose you should explain to scientists why it's of no importance. You could save them an awful lot of time and trouble.

Sure, you can say that, but once we've decided that the universe is real and that materialism is the appropriate form of philosophical enquiry, there isn't any room for further philosophy, which means it is irrelevant.

I think that it is you who has decided and has made a kind of faith of atheism and materialism. Furthermore, scientists have discovered that even so-called solid matter is nothing but energy vibrating at a very slow rate. Science has also discovered that there is a vast amount of energy in empty space, which flies in the face of our understanding of the universe. At any rate, materialism seems to have been supplanted some time ago and statements such as "there isn't any room for further philosophy" makes me think that I should just bow out of this discussion as it is going nowhere. I may reply later, but I doubt it.

[Razzleg]

However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why?

...Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?

There is a quote from David Hume's Treatise related to the first question, that I have always liked: "Whatever has the air of paradox, and is contrary to the first and most unprejudiced notions of mankind is often greedily embraced by philosophers, as showing the superiority of their science, which could discover opinions so remote from vulgar conceptions. On the other hand, anything proposed to us, which causes surprise and admiration, gives such a satisfaction to the mind, that it indulges itself in those agreeable emotions, and will never be persuaded that its pleasure is entirely without foundation. From these dispositions in philosophers and their disciples arises that mutual complaisance betwixt them; while the former furnish such plenty of strange and unaccountable opinions, and the latter so readily believe them."

As to the second question, I don't believe there is any substance to the distinction between Philosophy, proper noun, and "small 'p'" philosophical activity. Deliberation is often not tolerated, and certainly rarely appreciated, in times of crisis. Unfortunately, those are the times when some deliberation might be most helpful. The extent to which academics choose to isolate themselves may limit the impact their activity has on society at large, but there is no obstacle that prevents someone from studying philosophy and applying what they have learned and thought to non-academic matters.

[The Atheist]

When you make such statements, I fear that you are being disingenuous. Or perhaps you do not see any merit in this discussion. When did science prove there is no afterlife? Exactly how did science determine that? Provide evidence. That is like saying that science has proven there is no God.

Pretty much has, actually.

Every claim made about god/s to date has been found wanting, along with every claim about an afterlife.

Sure, it's not "proof" in the empirical sense, but I direct you to Bertrand Russell's teapot regarding proof.

Science has investigated claims made by theists over 10,000 or more years and when every single claim has been refuted, I'm happy to call it a done deal.

I believe that the vast majority of people would disagree when you say that such a question is pointless and I imagine that most people would consider the question of life after death or the existence of God to be among the most important questions, if not the most important questions, facing humanity.

See, I think it's the least important, and on par with whether invisible pink unicorns exist.

Also, I wouldn't get too carried away with thinking the "vast majority" of mankind thinks it's an important question at all.

In Europe and almost all developed countries, the vast majority actually couldn't care less, as evinced by census information and church attendance.

Christians and other religious sects think it's important, but by far the biggest threat to theism isn't militant atheists like me but apathetic agnosticism. The steep decline in belief in the sky-daddy shows that no such "vast majority" exists.

Actually, we know very little about the universe.

No.

We know an amazing amount about it, from how individual atoms behave to how molecules connect and what's inside DNA, along with what makes up stars billions of light years away.

Some small parts of our knowledge is lacking, sure, but we're getting close to even those most esoteric of answers.

Scientists cannot even agree on how the universe was created, much less explain the fact that, as TheFifthElement mentioned, up to 75% of the universe is made up of so-called dark energy and dark matter.

Yep, they're a couple of the questions we don't know precisely.

That we don't have complete knowledge of a singular event ~15 bya doesn't bother me at all. We may never find out, and since it happened so vastly long ago and far away, it's a speck of knowledge in the immense encyclopedia we already have.

Dark matter/energy is really a lot of fuss about nothing. It's not going to change physics beyond a possibility that quantum particles don't behave in accordance with physical laws for other matter & energy.

Given that if that is the case - that quantum particles behave differently - do you think it's going to matter? "Normal" physics will continue to work on non-quantum bits of the universe, and since the quantum bits are exceedingly unlikely to contain anything of relevance, it's not as important as people try to make it out to be.

The sum of all the known matter in the universe is much less then the amount the Big Bang would have created. Also, science cannot explain the mysterious Dark Flow, which seems to suggest that some structure outside of the universe is pulling on matter in the known universe, nor can science determine if the universe will expand forever or collapse in on itself.

This appears to be purely speculative since my very incomplete knowledge on dark energy/matter has it as another force in this universe rather than of another.

As to whether the universe will expand or collapse, it will turn out to be a mathematical equation once we can factor in the dark energy/matter and whatever it does, it will be many, many billions of years in front of us, making it possibly the most pointless question since Russell sent his teapot into space.

Before we get too carried away in quantum physics - surely the very last refuge of the theist and philosopher - can you just state what knowledge of how it works will make any difference to you, me, or anyone not employed in quantum physics research?

People have this weird notion that earth-shattering discoveries will be made by CERN, when the boring truth is, it's actually pure mathematics and like discovery of the largest prime number, is absolutely meaningless (and incomprehensible) to 6,999,999,900 of every 7 billion people on the planet.

The reason I am mentioning these things is to point out that -- despite our arrogance -- we cannot fully explain the mysterious nature of the world we inhabit.

Depends on how fully you need.

There are honestly hundreds of people employed in the most important task of coming up with the largest prime number.

As to the universe and world, I think you're way overselling the mysterious angle, because it's actuall quite logical and mathematical rather than mysterious.

Science makes progress, only to have something else come up that shows just how little we know. Similar to the way science will cure a disease, only to have another, more deadly disease crop up.

You are conflating two completely different things to make it appear that the demise of one disease causes the rise of another, which is completely incorrect.

Diseases crop up regardless of whether others exist.

Now, I have nothing against science. I think it is very important and has done much good in the world and, while I believe that there are limits to human understanding, I also believe that science has greatly contributed to our understanding of the world. That being the case, I wonder why you refuse to admit that philosophy has contributed to our understanding of the world? Do you feel that art and literature has contributed to our understanding of the world? If so, then why not philosophy?

As it happens, I think literature has not helped our understanding of the world at all.

It may help individuals understand it, but empirically, I'm pretty confident literature is no more useful than McDonald's hamburgers.

I'll be back to answer the rest of your post later, because I have to go!

Good discussion.

[dizzydoll]

It may help individuals understand it, but empirically, I'm pretty confident literature is no more useful than McDonald's hamburgers.

I like your sense of humour, lol. however if I may just put a toe in this pool long enough to ask...

Dont you think philosophy is a good diversion, lets say like watching an excellent match of tennis. After all they do say, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

But on a more serious note, how does science measure intuition and coincidence and there are even some police stations who use people with psychic ability? I know there are some charletons around but many a case has been cracked with the help of a psychic.

Just asking

[paradoxical]

I'll be back to answer the rest of your post later, because I have to go!

Good discussion.

You're right, this is a good discussion. I have to admit, you really know your stuff and have given me a lot to think about. I believe it's good when two people with opposing viewpoints can have an exchange like this.

But on a more serious note, how does science measure intuition and coincidence and there are even some police stations who use people with psychic ability? I know there are some charletons around but many a case has been cracked with the help of a psychic.

Just asking

dizzydoll, you bring up an excellent point. How would science go about measuring things such as intuition or synchronicity? We know they exist, but cannot be detected. There have been many scientific experiments and a lot of peer-reviewed data to suggest that psychic phenomena is real. The same with clairvoyance and telekinesis as well as near death experiences (NDE's) and instances of reincarnation.

Besides the many police stations who have used psychics I know that the US Army and the CIA have invested heavily in these kind of abilities and many say that they have produced startling results. My point is, like you mentioned, these phenomena appear to be real but cannot be detected by scientific instruments. The same with qi or acupuncture.

[OrphanPip]

dizzydoll, you bring up an excellent point. How would science go about measuring things such as intuition or synchronicity? We know they exist, but cannot be detected. There have been many scientific experiments and a lot of peer-reviewed data to suggest that psychic phenomena is real. The same with clairvoyance and telekinesis as well as near death experiences (NDE's) and instances of reincarnation

I don't believe we do know they exist. It's quite the jump to say you "know" something when it has no objective evidence and is based on subjective perspective and assumptions. There is no peer reviewed evidence of psychic ability that isn't massively methodologically flawed. Any claimed evidence of psychic ability has been impossible to reproduce. This strongly suggests that psychic phenomena are simply a creation of human beings.

Besides the many police stations who have used psychics I know that the US Army and the CIA have invested heavily in these kind of abilities and many say that they have produced startling results. My point is, like you mentioned, these phenomena appear to be real but cannot be detected by scientific instruments. The same with qi or acupuncture.

Sources of these "startling results?" Certainly the army has spent money on a lot of useless garbage and they wasted money on psychic research in the 50s and 60s, but this is not evidence of the reality of paranormal abilities.

Don't get me started on the ever mysterious "qi" or the overpriced placebo acupuncture.

[The Atheist]

So you at least admit that science cannot answer these questions?

No, I think science can help answer them, while philosophy is still floundering around with them 10,000 years later.

If we accept the greatest good position, then use of statistics, maths and sampling will give us the result best for all without any moralising.

It'll never happen, though.

Indeed, what else could we use other then philosophy or religion to answer these questions? I believe that the Existentialists, as well as philosophers such as Marx, Kant, Spinoza, or Descartes -- to name only a few -- would have much to say about these subjects. Even Socrates or Aristotle. The law is based on philosophy; why would philosophy not be able to answer these questions?

Actually, most of our laws are based on the bible and religion - which really does show that Philosophy hasn't offered much in the way of laws.

Yes, all those philosophers had much to say, but they were all unable to accept that the real world doesn't work the way they expect. Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party is a brilliant example of flawed thinking.

Spinoza was just playing deist with Pascal's dice, while Aristotle and Socrates might have had interesting views if they weren't so scientifically ignorant. One of them might have been a Russell or Newton in later years. Descartes was ok for his time, while I can't discuss Kant without resorting to pretty ugly language - German philosophers bother me a great deal.

So, that's it? You dismiss Plato's The Republic as rubbish and, when asked to explain, simply state that it's wrong in every material respect? I imagine if I did the same with Origin of the Species or the work of Richard Dawkins, you would not accept that.

You might be surprised!

The Origin of Species was deeply flawed, but was surprisingly close to factuality given that Darwin knew nothing of DNA. Dawkins, I wouldn't care either way.

I can't be too specific on The Republic simply because it's almost 30 years ago that I read it and I'm not about to pollute my mind reading it again.

Well, I suppose you should explain to scientists why it's of no importance. You could save them an awful lot of time and trouble.

I wish I could.

If I could arrange for the billions of dollars and millions of man-hours to be spent on something productive, I would, but alas, I cannot do it.

Do you think it's important? If so, why?

I think that it is you who has decided and has made a kind of faith of atheism and materialism. Furthermore, scientists have discovered that even so-called solid matter is nothing but energy vibrating at a very slow rate. Science has also discovered that there is a vast amount of energy in empty space, which flies in the face of our understanding of the universe. At any rate, materialism seems to have been supplanted some time ago and statements such as "there isn't any room for further philosophy" makes me think that I should just bow out of this discussion as it is going nowhere. I may reply later, but I doubt it.

Like most philosophical discussions, we are certainly going to get on the carousel sooner or later.

But on a more serious note, how does science measure intuition and coincidence and there are even some police stations who use people with psychic ability? I know there are some charletons around but many a case has been cracked with the help of a psychic.

Just asking

Absolutely wrong.

To date, not one case has ever been solved by a psychic.

Along with that, every single attempt to display psychic ability has failed.

All psychics are charlatans. Bar none.

Science doesn't measure intuition since every claim for clairvoyance has also failed.

dizzydoll, you bring up an excellent point. How would science go about measuring things such as intuition or synchronicity? We know they exist, but cannot be detected.

"We know they're real"?

I think not.

If such things existed, they would be measurable, if not by type, then by results. The Parapsychological Association has been trying for many years to make a case that they exist, but despite meta-analysis of thousands of Ganzfelds, even clowns like Dean Radin are only trying to claim a P value of >.01 or some such ridiculous assertion.

Alas, when an honest evaluation of the PA's "research" was undertaken, it was found to be flawed, so when the [allegedly] foremost parapsychological researcher in the world has to fudge data to try to even make the minutest claim, I'm very confident no such thing as intuition exists.

There have been many scientific experiments and a lot of peer-reviewed data to suggest that psychic phenomena is real. The same with clairvoyance and telekinesis as well as near death experiences (NDE's) and instances of reincarnation.

That is also completely wrong.

If you think there's evidence, please present it and I will direct you to the appropriate study which shows where and why it's flawed.

You will not find one piece of peer-reviewed evidence that suggests any of clairvoyance, telekinesis, telepathy, reincarnation* or any other form of paranormality are actually real.

NDEs are easily explainable through oxygen deprivation.

*I find it highly amusing that every instance ever publicised of reincarnation claims that the previous life was as a famous person. I know of three people who all claim vehemently that they were Napoleon Bonaparte!

Besides the many police stations who have used psychics ...

I've been involved in proper investigation of claims by psychics of police involvement and we found exactly one example of a police station which used psychics - unsuccessfully, of course - and the police involved were censured for wasting resources. That was in Ireland, so if you have alleged examples of other police using psychics, I'd be most interested to know about it.

...I know that the US Army and the CIA have invested heavily in these kind of abilities and many say that they have produced startling results.

You're half right - the US Army did invest (although only a small amount rather than heavily) in paranormal research. The research showed no results and was stopped for that reason.

The results being nil startled nobody.

My point is, like you mentioned, these phenomena appear to be real but cannot be detected by scientific instruments. The same with qi or acupuncture.

Again, if such things existed, they would be measurable.

Qi and acupuncture are completely different, with qi being all paranormality and non-existent. Acupuncture, because it actually sticks needles into nerves does affect humans and causes a response as expected.

Whether it's of benefit is still unknown as in almost all cases it performs exactly in accordance with placebo, but there are some studies which suggest that some kinds of head pain may be helped by acupuncture, so it can't be totally dismissed.

[dizzydoll]

Absolutely wrong.

To date, not one case has ever been solved by a psychic.

Along with that, every single attempt to display psychic ability has failed.

All psychics are charlatans. Bar none.

Science doesn't measure intuition since every claim for clairvoyance has also failed.

If such things existed, they would be measurable, if not by type, then by results. The Parapsychological Association has been trying for many years to make a case that they exist, but despite meta-analysis of thousands of Ganzfelds, even clowns like Dean Radin are only trying to claim a P value of >.01 or some such ridiculous assertion.

The trouble is you cannot measure this and please believe me if there is any seed of doubt to begin with such phenomenon as intuition, synchronicity and psychic evaluation will elude you for sure.

What you say is simply not true... or else its old science. I watch a channel called Crime and Investigation which show detectives using psychics to successfully bring perpetrators to justice, many of them are old cases.

I, for one, have had prophetic dreams. In fact I saw my home in a dream 3 years before I moved here. I believe this revelation could have only been presented in a dream by my personal guides. Its not the only prophetic dream that I've had. Edgar Casey is another who relied on prophetic dreams with great accuracy.

Another account which makes the hair on my arms stand up is Nostradamus, he was buried with a plaque around his neck predicting the exact year his grave would be unearthed. He said the man who would dig up his grave would be killed. It happened just as he predicted it would 200 years later. Granted the stray bullet that killed that grave digger came from a soldier in the French Revolution, if I am not mistaken, but isnt that such a coincidence?

Anyway it makes me think of this little phrase, cant remember who wrote it:

For those who believe, no proof is necessary
For those who dont believe, no proof is possible

Its our differences that make us the interesting people that we are, and we shouldnt wish to change that in anyone. Its what makes the world go round

I love reading this thread, its not only entertaining its very educational

[Satan]

Nope, this is just a plea for magic, I'm sorry.

If there is no purpose to life other than just living it, I can't see where philosophy will or even can, provide answers.

Like religion, philosophy is a 10,000-year fail.

No problem there, earlier philosophies did ask some questions which needed considering, but it really is irrelevant in 2010.

I really am interested in your interpretation of life and the way it is supposed to be lived without inquiring into the meaning of the same. I'm inclined to agree with you in a way. Consciousness alone is responsible for those ripples and turbulences in our otherwise peaceful and serene existence. One look at the zombies and bam ...you want to be one. They appear content, often insanely so, with whatever they have. No worries, no pain, no future planning, no mortgages, no social appearances, no pseudo-intellectual debates and certainly no fear of death. If we're to blame anything for the human condition, please let it be the curse of consciousness. Evolution has failed miserably in this regard. I can only hope that our future generations will not have this problem, and they will just live and live and live, unlike those ancient philosophers who spent most of their life worrying and thinking about things they never understood anyway.

19th and 20th century philosophers were the worst. They are what the online populace so delightfully describes as emo losers. The likes of Sartre and Camus were annoying whiners with nothing productive or constructive to say or contribute to the society, all the while people were busy living, fighting wars, killing each other and threatening to annihilate our luxurious existence back to stone ages. No wonder they couldn't find cute dates. Nobels are overrated anyway. Even Obama got one, and that too without doing anything. But I digress!

Yes, philosophy is very much irrelevant today. Science alone, with its hard facts and inventions, is more than enough for anyone in this day and age. So what if most of their micro and macrophysics don't make much sense in a physical world such as ours. Those umpteen dimensions required by a few mathematical equations may sound out of this world today, but someday we'll thank these physicists for conjuring and summoning up those hidden secrets of the universe, including dark energy and dark matter, that make our everyday life so much more enjoyable.

I take pity on people who feel alienated from this wonderful society, especially from those shiny new gadgets and luxurious things we keep producing. How can anyone find enough time on their hands for such inane things like thoughts and philosophy? How can anyone feel disenchanted from this life of abundance ...this world full of wonders? Even those problems can be cured easily with the help of science. I so wish they brought back genius ideas like lobotomy. No wonder most of the philosophers were senile old kooks and they only sought after spreading their disease of philosophy--thus turning bright young people into pessimistic nothings.

You seem to be incorrectly conflating philosophy and abstract & critical thinking, plus, you'd need to present some serious evidence of the outrageous claim that wisdom only comes from philosophy.

No, you seem to have a problem with the word: philosophy. I'll let Wikipedia define it:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "Philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally means "love of wisdom".

And thank god for that!

Amen! Even God is aware of the problem with thinking. Which is why we have commandments inscribed on stone tablets.

PS: I was bored.