Epistemology has historically been used to justify a moral theory. Plato, quite obviously. Hume used it to justify atheism. Descartes, Kant, all the greats. It’s a phantom.
bahman - an example of the errors philosophers have made? They are rife. Low-lying fruit is Kant. A lie is always wrong, as if there aren’t many shades of grey to lying.
Most people do know the truth. Where truth applies. It just doesn’t apply to all the circumstances that many deep thinkers think it does.
This one I have trouble with. Not s’sure there is anything to gain by this distinction. Maybe gives alnguage a teeny bit too much credit, which then might cause a reaction of not giving language enough credit.
It gave us all of them, even the bad ones, like Wittgy. Plato’s Allegory of the cave is a classic, right? What the fuck was that even about, except that philosophers should rule everyone else? Philosophers like, um… Plato! He was talking about exactly nothing that actually exists. Famous guy, though.
To me it does. Philosophy helps us to ask proper question and as you said help us to answer the question. It is about the way you are approaching the reality. It is the way. The rest is the details, science, art, ethic, etc. which each sits on the base, philosophy.
Good list no doubt but its more fun to bicker. I will bicker with this. I think science isnt about consensus but about proofs that dont rely on consensus.
Its about being able to repeat an experiment and get the same result. A person by himself can conduct science and create a whole valid framework with which no other soul ever agrees.
There wasnt any consensus when Copernicus formulated things from experimenting and logical operations and I would really not agree that only when idiots finally came around to the facts only then it became science.
Science is made by hermits, away from the pointless distractions of being agreed or disagreed with.
Consensus was when the great Holy Men gathered in the st Peter and sat around voting unanimously that the Earth is flat.
That would seem to be a part of it, but if that’s the whole package, then we are not learning, via science, much about anything but what we think. Like we can’t learn about cane toads, but we can learn what we are saying about cane toads. Making cane toads equivalent to unicorns.
What does this mean, you mean that for example, Newtons ideas had origin in Archimedes, Copernicus, Keppler, etc?
If so yes, I think all thought and all language has some relation to something that happened in the past.
It never occurred to me that there are phlosophers who tried to avoid having some roots for their thinking but maybe youre right, this could account for a lot of idiocies that have occurred.
I think cane toads arent in the domain of epistemology, period. Edit - well unless ontology and epistemology are synthesized like in a certain dangerous philosophy out there.
They are in biology and possibly ontology. But a cane toad isnt a piece of knowledge primarily unless one goes to insane lengths to assert that there is nothing but text.