Scientists v Philosophers

[haldir]

This idea came from Pure's evolution v intelligent design thread where he said

"Don't you know philosophers eat scientists for breakfast".

Cannibalistic symbolism aside, I found this an interesting proposition. I'm sure that there are pleanty of folk on both sides that would like to voice their opinions.

 

[matriarch]

This idea came from Pure's evolution v intelligent design thread where he said

"Don't you know philosophers eat scientists for breakfast".

Cannibalistic symbolism aside, I found this an interesting proposition. I'm sure that there are pleanty of folk on both sides that would like to voice their opinions.

If you think I'm walking into this one with my eyes open, to become cannon fodder for JW, you must be off your trolley, sunshine !!

I abstain.

Mat

 

[minsue]

I've plenty of opinions, but I'm too uneducated on this topic to feel that I can argue them effectively or even that they're anywhere near accurate.

 

[matriarch]

I've plenty of opinions, but I'm too uneducated on this topic to feel that I can argue them effectively or even that they're anywhere near accurate.

Oh. A diplomat.

 

[NoJo]

There are lots of different types of philosphers. In fact the only thing they all have in common is beards.

Scientists are harder to identify, but most will have "scientist" tattooed on some part of their body.

Philosphers are notoriously sadistic, and usually like to prod pencils and compass points in scientistswhen sitting behind them in lecture halls.

Scientists, on the other hand "put out" more, and tend to stay in key more at Karaoke.

Hope this helps.

 

[minsue]

I love you, Joe

 

[haldir]

Hey Sub - think you're hitting the right note here.

Mat - sorry, couldn't resist but I'm only joking

 

[TheEarl]

A true scientist cares nothing about their dress. Wild hair, wild beards (especially the women), big wooly jumpers, sandals with socks are all usual characteristics. In fact, it is a widely accepted theory that the bigger and baggier and shabbier the jumper that a science lecturer is wearing, the better a scientist he or she is.

It is a corollary of this rule that you should never trust anything you hear from a smartly dressed scientist.

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

Re: Re: Scientists v Philosophers

If you think I'm walking into this one with my eyes open, to become cannon fodder for JW, you must be off your trolley, sunshine !!

I abstain.

Mat

Does he have a trolley? Cool!

 

[cantdog]

There are lots of different types of philosphers. In fact the only thing they all have in common is beards.
...Except the French ones, who look like film stars.

Scientists are harder to identify, but most will have "scientist" tattooed on some part of their body.
amicus said he was a scientist, for instance. That was fraud, as usual. amicus doesn't use full sentences.

Philosphers are notoriously sadistic, and usually like to prod pencils and compass points in scientists when sitting behind them in lecture halls.
This is new information to me.

Scientists, on the other hand "put out" more, and tend to stay in key more at Karaoke.This too is new information to me. I am now a philosopher, myself; I put out. Ask around. I have never been a scientist, though, and while I fronted a rock band (vocals) I never did karaoke. Thus, no data.

Hope this helps. Me, too.

 

[Op_Cit]

They both had a common ancestor.

Back in Socrates' day philosophers were scientists, and amongst all the misses, some amazing scientific things were deduced philosophically (like the existence of the atom).

But then they killed the best thinker and a generation later spawned the death of philosophy and the birth of science: Aristotle. The idiot who separated science from everything else.

So since that time Philosophy is mostly a joke. Philosophers postulating and losing touch with reality and taking things further from understanding.

With the philosophers losing touch, the scientists have no one to keep them honest. As a result the scientists become ever more convinced that they know what the hell they're doing, while everyday they get further away from really understanding what's going on.

Occasionally there's a genetic sport like Richard Feynman who seems to combine the elements of both.

Oh well, what was the question again?

Oh, yeah the AH geek of the year competition...How'm I doin'?

Actually, if I could have remembered the words to Monty Python's Philosopher's song I'd have posted that.

 

[cantdog]

You rule, op_cit, you know that?

 

[haldir]

I completely agree with The Earl (myself excluded of course).

Agree wit Op_Cit too and just for everyones delectation (and no geeks need apply)

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable
Eideger, Eideger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table,
David Hume could outconsume the likes of ?????????
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therfore I am.

Chorus

There's nothin Neitzche couldnt teach ya bout the raisinn of the wrist
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

Airsitotle, aristotle was a bugger for the bottle

.......

someone else to correct/continue please

 

[NoJo]

I took a university degree in philosphy because many interesting scientific questions seemed to me to be better dealt with by philosophers. People like Dan Dennett in particular were asking questions about consciousness that scientists, understandably cautious in this area, feared to tread.

 

[CharleyH]

Re: Re: Scientists v Philosophers

If you think I'm walking into this one with my eyes open, to become cannon fodder for JW, you must be off your trolley, sunshine !!

I abstain.

Mat

He/ she has a good question. I love the cannabilism of it, it suits and it does have significance. FINALLY! A person I get after two sentances - no offence to anyone, I love you all I disagree with Joe though, scientists usually have sadaism tatood (sp) on their chests, philosophers have the tat on their butt's, it reads "FRAGILE".

 

[Pure]

I like Sub Joe's point. Many scientists avoid the big questions, and the biology text I have --like others- isn't much interested in the origin of life, complexity or whatever.

There are many bright scientists, and the ones with a flair for philosophy account themselves very well.

Occasional very bright scientists have a soft spot for religion, as the famous astronomer, O. Gingerich, who's is the general area of the 'intelligent design' folks mentioned. Not much of a philosopher, afaik.

I did once see a debate between a philosopher and a scientist, and it was kinda sad. Alastaire MacIntyre vs. B.F. Skinner.
Was not even close. (There is also a Chomsky Skinner debate encounter that's famous [it's in books], Chomsky being somewhat a philosopher and renaissance man. Again, not close.)

Anyway, the intent wasn't an us/them free for all, simply to tease haldir.

 

[Op_Cit]

David Hume could outconsume the likes of ?????????

"Schopenhauer & Hegel "
I think goes there

 

[Liar]

Scientists or philosophers? Bah, phronetics kicks both their sissy asses.

 

[TheEarl]

I like Sub Joe's point. Many scientists avoid the big questions, and the biology text I have --like others- isn't much interested in the origin of life, complexity or whatever.

There are many bright scientists, and the ones with a flair for philosophy account themselves very well.

Occasional very bright scientists have a soft spot for religion, as the famous astronomer, O. Gingerich, who's is the general area of the 'intelligent design' folks mentioned. Not much of a philosopher, afaik.

I did once see a debate between a philosopher and a scientist, and it was kinda sad. Alastaire MacIntyre vs. B.F. Skinner.
Was not even close. (There is also a Chomsky Skinner debate encounter that's famous [it's in books], Chomsky being somewhat a philosopher and renaissance man. Again, not close.)

Anyway, the intent wasn't an us/them free for all, simply to tease haldir.

What about Schrodinger? Surely he was a philosopher as well as a scientist?

The Earl

 

[Op_Cit]

What about Schrodinger? Surely he was a philosopher as well as a scientist?

The Earl

He falls into the category with Heisenberg: We can't be sure, yet.

 

[TheEarl]

He falls into the category with Heisenberg: We can't be sure, yet.

LOL! Scientist joke.

The Earl

 

[Pure]

op cit said,

But then they killed the best thinker and a generation later spawned the death of philosophy and the birth of science: Aristotle. The idiot who separated science from everything else.

So since that time Philosophy is mostly a joke. Philosophers postulating and losing touch with reality and taking things further from understanding.

With the philosophers losing touch, the scientists have no one to keep them honest.

Well, it's a fun review, a sort of "History of the world according to Pogo." (or maybe Ayn Rand.) It's doubtful that Aristotle 'separated science from everything else.' He did works in both areas, which he didn't separate; his philosophy is often quite fine; his science had many mistakes since he wasn't experimentally inclined.

I think the split is much later; in the West, experimental physical science doesn't get going until around Galileo's time: Often it's said that Newton and Kepler were the last great scientists who had an interest in philosophy. After Kepler, science is on its own.

Philosophers are undoubtedly more inclined to debauchery, though scientists are sometimes more deranged.

 

[Pure]

Yes, theEarl, I believe you're right about Schroedinger; more a renaisannce type, and no slouch in philos, from what little I know.

By the way, has anyone seen his cat lately?

Philsophers Song, according to one source:

Monty Python
» The Philosophers Song

The Philosopher's Song
(Monty Python)

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

 

[Op_Cit]

Well, it's a fun review, a sort of "History of the world according to Pogo." (or maybe Ayn Rand.)

Now that's uncalled for.

Pogo I can take but comparing me to Rand... Well I never!

She's as whacked as the rest of those modern philosophers.

OC
BTW Aristotle was the inception of the split.

 

[Guest]

I can't tell if this is a serious or silly thread, or seriously silly, whatever. I don't care about a philosopher's or scientist's personal life anymore than I did Clinton's.

For some twenty years now I have worked around, and sometimes with, scientists and philosophers (at the professorial and hard research level). I love scientists most, and most of all mathematicians. They are some of the most creative minds I've known, often with a great sense of humor; they love music too w/a special passion. It's my experience that more scientists than not are religious (even those from Caltech, vs. the Catholic uni. I am now at.) Many of the scientists I know are great parents and spouses too. Don't know what it means, but I notice these things.

Only one philosopher of my acquaintance had his feet on the ground, and I daresay it's because he was fighting for his life the several years I knew him (he died two years ago); he was also one of the best teachers I've ever known. (I loved that Feynman was a great teacher too.)

It seems to me that the two types mostly stay away from each other now, and I think it's too bad. Lastly, it's easier for me to read philosophy than science, and that's too bad for me.

Perdita