There are, however, procedures which can be utilized to help foster creativity. For instance, there are procedures for “de-cluttering” the mind of unnecessary information. The “original idea” itself can be considered truly spontaneous, for all practical purposes.
What’s a “scientific” inquiry?
Look - at every juncture you will be pulled up by the method of science, which is rote. The method of science is rote. There are no discoveries, inventions, insights, inquiries, that can be established or initiated by rote.
I am sure that there are many philosopohers and scientists who would agree. Earlier, I surprised everyone here by saying that there was no subject such as philosophy, yet I put to rest what looked like my maverick intentions by showing that there was a strong philosophical movement that reflected this view. The same goes for science, I am sure.
Quite right of course. Philosophy is about decluttering. That’s what I see myself as doing. Tidying up the room.
You just said that was rubbish.
Science examines by rote what we have, prior to science, decided what we should look at and why we should look at it.
I think I understand you here
science is more being a tech. than an actual discover
if so I agree
Scientific "methodology" is technically impotent, and lacks the insight and raison d'etre that accompanies ordinary "methodical behaviour". to some degree , sure
true
not true
break thoughs are made by thinking out of the box
and you only know the surface part of the ice burg that shows its self , what is under water is FAR FAR FAR , beyond methodical behaviour
JohnJones, are you familiar w/ Kuhn’s “the structure of scientific revolutions”?
Why is philosophy returning to post modernism?
Honestly it seems that both religion and philosophy have turned on science these days and are more and more at odds with it.
Maybe the philosophers that post on message boards, because they need that kind of binary madness in order to hone what they see as their advocacy skills, but real philosophy nowadays, for the most part is almost all perfectly in kahoots w/ science.
Check out some of these…
I do hope so Smears. I posted a topic on the move towards post modernism in some areas of philosophy if anyone is interested. 
I’ve seen Dennet before (although I disagree with his views on compatibilism I do side with his approach which is admirably logical; his attacks on religious dogma are particularly effective). I also agree with Putnam’s ideas on multirealisability and hence opposition to determinism, but I was more referring to a grass roots level. Is there a swelling resistance movement?
I said that.
I’ve read about paradigm changes, such as Newtonian mechanics yielding to quantum mechanics. Anecdotes are collected by regarding them as possible facts within a paradigm. If the anecdotes don’t square up with the paradigm then either the paradigm, or the anecdotes, is junked.
If the paradigm is junked then unless a new paradigm is found that fits the anecdotes, then the anecdotes remain as anecdotes, and never reach the status of a fact.
Any observation that is conducted through a paradigm is a fact. Without a paradigm we have only anecdote. But it is paradigm-less, non-scientific anecdote that kickstarts, and not science, its method, or facts.
Paradigms themselves are not created by some exclusively scientific method or procedure. Science stipulates that a paradigm must be found, but the finding of it is down to our human, natural resources.
I’m not at odds with science, nor do I think anyone else is.
What people are at odds with is the outllandish claims that are made by science promoters, claims that extend way beyond the actual situation on the ground.
So you’re saying that in the beginning at the question asking or hypothesis stage, science is philosophy, quite; trivial but true. So what? That’s probably why no one changed the term Philosophy de Doctorate or Philosophiae Doctor, PhD to ScD: Science Doctorate. Despite philosophy becoming involved in the new science further down the line. Ideas are philosophical; ground breaking stuff. 
Dennett and Putnam are stage-magicians who seek to mystify and astound where they see sense losing ground. Against religion, they pose fantastic entities to intrigue gullible followers of promotional science.
Yeah I think Dennett is kind of lame like that. He’s more show than anything when he gets on stage.
I do like the Friedman’s lecture, and I think Ishmael’s (sp?) is pretty interesting. I’ve seen Dennett 4 or 5 times and you can always tell when he gets to the part that’s just radical conjecture. He can’t even keep a straight face.
Friedman uses the whole kantian epistemological framework to talk about phl of science in what I think is an interesting way. Ishmael has the thing about "wandering significance, which you might find interesting imo, given some of your posts.
Ross is just pure genius. One of the most intelligent people I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.
I can’t see any scientist following Kant. Kant’s framework, and science’s are directly opposed. Saying that, the anti-Kantian framework that science adopts is adopted simply by force of pragmatic habit as far as I know. But such habits lose theoretical ground in extreme cases, such as creation phenomena.
I am against that as a potential scientist I find the claims of String Theorists shocking quite frankly. But propaganda gets funding even if it is nonsense.
Niels Bohr based his Copenhagen interpretation to Kants approach to instrumental realism. So some areas of science do, he frequently quotes Kant in his books anyway as being pivotal in founding his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics(QM). given what you said you can probably see why, the measurement problem, ie the unsound nature of assigning value to things we can’t measure etc.
The fact that philosophy and science can be interchangeable terms is also not in doubt.
Yeah well read his books I wouldn’t judge either of them on what is essentially a means of entertainment. I found it hard to argue with Putnams three fold cord being as its nature reflected the fuzziness of brain function generally. I think multirealisability has legs, ie that the colour red is not precisely the same as yours, but close enough for us to agree what red is.
red
red?
I kind of just intuitively don’t like arguments for “fuzziness”. I feel in my gut that they’re somewhat of a “giving up”. I have a paper called “dispensing w/ yellow and good” which relates the topic of your post w/ morality. I think that’s the exact title I’m not sure. I’ll have to dig it up it’s gonna drive me crazy now.