So you say; which institution are you referring to?
True or not, it's not the reason.
So how much of the current Ph.D. program in the sciences involves philosophy?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you say; which institution are you referring to?It seems the current Ph.D. program in philosophy is very very weak in science.
True or not, it's not the reason.If this is true, then I can see why is a science degree called a Ph.D.
So how much of the current Ph.D. program in the sciences involves philosophy?To study science is a better way to understand philosophy.
Here's one reason - they might not like the idea of eating dead animals.
Being a vegetarian means not eating meat. What philosophical side of that do you want to discuss - the aesthetics? the morals & ethics? the logic? the politics? the epistemology?
There's all kinds of stuff new graduates can't handle; experience is important too. So anyway, what philosophical answer to that question do you think has biology as an important part in the argument?
So you say; which institution are you referring to?
True or not, it's not the reason.
So how much of the current Ph.D. program in the sciences involves philosophy?
When I asked, your take on how a biologist might approach ethics was shockingly shallow. If thats how you as a scientist approach the issue, or if thats how you think other scientists might deal with philosophy, then scientific training is utterly insufficient for doing good philosophy.No science department offers philosophy course. Because science is the essence of philosophy. Redundancy is not needed.
Those are reasonable questions; not necessary to involve much biology there.One philosophical issue is: Is killing and eating an animal (or eat it alive) wrong? Is an animal life less valuable than a human life? What is the meaning of a life, any life, anyway?
Perhaps because it's not a well-formed question; on the surface the answer appears trivially obvious - every living thing has a life that's different from every other - each can only live its own life; but presumably that wasn't what you meant, so what exactly is being asked here? mechanisms of life? life experiences? life behaviours? value of life? lifestyle? life metrics?... Are lives different among all living creatures?
I don't think a philosopher without some biological knowledge can answer this question well.
I expect they'd find your opinion amusing.I am surprised to see a course in the list: The philosophy of quantum mechanics. I think the level of quantum mechanics introduced in that course would be no more than one can see from a Discovery Channel.
How so?... science is the essence of philosophy.
Those are reasonable questions; not necessary to involve much biology there.
Perhaps because it's not a well-formed question; on the surface the answer appears trivially obvious - every living thing has a life that's different from every other - each can only live its own life; but presumably that wasn't what you meant, so what exactly is being asked here? mechanisms of life? life experiences? life behaviours? value of life? lifestyle? life metrics?
I expect they'd find your opinion amusing.
How so?
I'm happy to accept that some philosophical questions could potentially involve 'quite a bit' of biological knowledge (although you haven't yet been able to give a specific example to demonstrate that), but that's a far cry from what you were claiming earlier.I am not trying to dig deep into this issue in this thread. As long as we can see it could potentially involve quite a bit biological knowledge in this philosophical issue on any aspect you mentioned.
Did you read his response when I asked for a philosophic question thats significantly informed by scientific knowledge? It was awful.I'm happy to accept that some philosophical questions could potentially involve 'quite a bit' of biological knowledge (although you haven't yet been able to give a specific example to demonstrate that), but that's a far cry from what you were claiming earlier.
Circles of your own making.Sorry, I am tired of running in circles.
Yes - as far as I can see it showed depressingly little knowledge of both philosophy and biology.Did you read his response when I asked for a philosophic question thats significantly informed by scientific knowledge? It was awful.
I don't know - but his pronouncements on philosophy brought the Dunning-Kruger Effect to mind (i.e. 'little does he know how little he knows'). It surprises me that one can gain a Ph.D. and remain so unaware.I couldnt tell if he was mocking biologists (and so doubts his own claim about the value of scientific knowledge) or if it was actually the best he could do.
I'm happy to accept that some philosophical questions could potentially involve 'quite a bit' of biological knowledge (although you haven't yet been able to give a specific example to demonstrate that), but that's a far cry from what you were claiming earlier.
We have a new issue, people!Now, the issue is: Why are faithful Buddhists vegetarians?
Did you read his response when I asked for a philosophic question thats significantly informed by scientific knowledge? It was awful.
I couldnt tell if he was mocking biologists (and so doubts his own claim about the value of scientific knowledge) or if it was actually the best he could do.
We have a new issue, people!
But it seems more like a culture question than a philosophy one, in that we're being asked to answer for Buddhism, rather than do our own investigation into the ethics of human animal relations.
Pretty much everyone agrees we need to eat things that live.Not so. Buddhism has its own special reason of not eating animals.
As a general philosophical issue, the idea is not to kill a life for food.
As I said, if you don't like this, pick another one. I would insert science into it.
Pretty much everyone agrees we need to eat things that live.
Of course not. Thats why youre wrong about Buddhists not wanting to take life to eat.But do you treat a chicken like a cabbage, since both are lives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?