Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems the current Ph.D. program in philosophy is very very weak in science.

So you say; which institution are you referring to?

If this is true, then I can see why is a science degree called a Ph.D.

True or not, it's not the reason.

To study science is a better way to understand philosophy.

So how much of the current Ph.D. program in the sciences involves philosophy?

 

[juvenissun]

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?

What is wrong to eat an animal? For example, a chicken.
To eat an animal: two ways: eat it alive, or kill and cook it first. 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?

Now, one way, may be an essential way to look at this problem is: Are lives different among all living creatures?
I don't think a philosopher without some biological knowledge can answer this question well.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

Here is a list of graduate courses in the department of philosophy, Yale Univ.

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. But anyway, I would give credit to this odd course.

No science department offers philosophy course. Because science is the essence of philosophy. Redundancy is not needed.

 

[durangodawood]

No science department offers philosophy course. Because science is the essence of philosophy. Redundancy is not needed.

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

Those are reasonable questions; not necessary to involve much biology there.

... Are lives different among all living creatures?
I don't think a philosopher without some biological knowledge can answer this question well.

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?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I expect they'd find your opinion amusing.

... science is the essence of philosophy.

How so?

 

[juvenissun]

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 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.

 

[juvenissun]

I expect they'd find your opinion amusing.
How so?

Sorry, I am tired of running in circles.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

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.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry, I am tired of running in circles.

Circles of your own making.

FYI - it's generally considered that philosophy is the essence or core of science, rather than vice-versa; the scientific method itself, testability, falsifiability, hypothesis generation, theory formulation, and so-on, are all applications of philosophical ideas, and metaphysics provides the framework for thought about reality, existence, cosmology, space, time, cause & effect, probability, etc. One could even say that science is a form of applied philosophy...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did you read his response when I asked for a philosophic question thats significantly informed by scientific knowledge? It was awful.

Yes - as far as I can see it showed depressingly little knowledge of both philosophy and biology.

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 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.

 

[juvenissun]

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 guess this thread has no particular goal.
So if you like to investigate the issue deeper, I will go along.
My biology is terrible. But I know it much better than the majority of "philosophers" do.

Now, the issue is: Why are faithful Buddhists vegetarians?
This issue has everything to do with the morality of killing life. And I deeply believe that biology has a lot saying in this philosophical issue.

If you don't like this one, then change the issue, any issue. I believe I can involve some sciences into whatever philosophical issue you suggested.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry, I am tired of running in circles.

I'm quite certain you are, but you chose your own path.

 

[durangodawood]

Now, the issue is: Why are faithful Buddhists vegetarians?

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Stick around, I am quite certain, it will become more entertaining.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

Pretty much everyone agrees we need to eat things that live.

But do you treat a chicken like a cabbage, since both are lives.

 

[durangodawood]

But do you treat a chicken like a cabbage, since both are lives.

Of course not. Thats why youre wrong about Buddhists not wanting to take life to eat.