Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophy vs. History vs. PoliSci

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:14:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
facts and history are something I trust more, but having a healthy dose of philosophy in your thinking is a good tool to have as well.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:17:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:14:17 PM, imabench wrote:
facts and history are something I trust more, but having a healthy dose of philosophy in your thinking is a good tool to have as well.

Well, yeah, we trust the facts. How do you then go on to form an opinion?
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:24:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:17:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:14:17 PM, imabench wrote:
facts and history are something I trust more, but having a healthy dose of philosophy in your thinking is a good tool to have as well.

Well, yeah, we trust the facts. How do you then go on to form an opinion?

You use the facts to your advantage to reinforce your own beliefs and then try to show the flaws in the facts that go against your opinion.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:28:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Philosophers of science are generally very good about including empirical research in their arguments. So are philosophers of history. It depends on what area of philosophy you are talking about.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:31:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Philosophy is the theory. History and PoliSci are the actualities (history more so than Polisci). But, the actualities are based upon the theories. So in order to understand history you should also understand philosophy. Both are necessary.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:32:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I ground my belief system in economics and psychology first.

Then history is used as empirical evidence to demonstrate that the economics and psychology are correct. History can't really be used as strong evidence, since there are too many variables going on to derive much information. But it can be somewhat useful. Psychology and economics should be at least able to explain some history.

Philosophy for me is kind of has no/little use in my belief system. That is because our morality system is really just grounded in emotional and environmental programming and nothing more. It doesn't do much to study philosophy, because all morality is just one's subjective preference.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:28:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Philosophers of science are generally very good about including empirical research in their arguments. So are philosophers of history. It depends on what area of philosophy you are talking about.

Oh yeah, philosophy is very broad. I've just noticed that there's a significant difference between the amount of empirical content that's expected between disciplines at the undergrad level. Usually a philosophy paper is an exegesis of a certain position and then our own evaluations where empirical evidence has limited use.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:32:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I ground my belief system in economics and psychology first.

Then history is used as empirical evidence to demonstrate that the economics and psychology are correct. History can't really be used as strong evidence, since there are too many variables going on to derive much information. But it can be somewhat useful. Psychology and economics should be at least able to explain some history.

Philosophy for me is kind of has no/little use in my belief system. That is because our morality system is really just grounded in emotional and environmental programming and nothing more. It doesn't do much to study philosophy, because all morality is just one's subjective preference.

Are you aware that you've drawn a whole bunch of dubious philosophical conclusions here?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 1:08:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:56:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:32:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I ground my belief system in economics and psychology first.

Then history is used as empirical evidence to demonstrate that the economics and psychology are correct. History can't really be used as strong evidence, since there are too many variables going on to derive much information. But it can be somewhat useful. Psychology and economics should be at least able to explain some history.

Philosophy for me is kind of has no/little use in my belief system. That is because our morality system is really just grounded in emotional and environmental programming and nothing more. It doesn't do much to study philosophy, because all morality is just one's subjective preference.

Are you aware that you've drawn a whole bunch of dubious philosophical conclusions here?

Hehehe, I suppose. I guess then my belief system is based little on philosophy rather then no philosophy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 1:30:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 1:08:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:56:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:32:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I ground my belief system in economics and psychology first.

Then history is used as empirical evidence to demonstrate that the economics and psychology are correct. History can't really be used as strong evidence, since there are too many variables going on to derive much information. But it can be somewhat useful. Psychology and economics should be at least able to explain some history.

Philosophy for me is kind of has no/little use in my belief system. That is because our morality system is really just grounded in emotional and environmental programming and nothing more. It doesn't do much to study philosophy, because all morality is just one's subjective preference.

Are you aware that you've drawn a whole bunch of dubious philosophical conclusions here?

Hehehe, I suppose. I guess then my belief system is based little on philosophy rather then no philosophy.

Then you would admit that your political beliefs are irrational then being based purely on your likes and dislikes? Obviously if you're right all political beliefs are like that, but by your own admission you admit that yours are. What is political theory if not an extension of morality?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 1:38:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

You're not bearing in the mind the mechanics of each competency. History, PolSci and Philo are all aspects of the same thing -- society.

History is based on (what is accepted as) fact, because that's that it is. A study of historical accounts of what is accepted as fact.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is based on conclusions we've made about the world around us. Therefore, with the exception of concepts we're drawing conclusions about, obviously, we couldn't say that philosophy is empirical, because empirical evidence is objective observation, which does not satisfy the necessary constituents of a conclusion.

PolSci is the study of how we apply our philosophies to reality. For example, the moral foundation that results in the legislation we accept as law, or the societal construct (philosophical basis) that defines the margin of our society (empirical).

This means that, not only is one not any more valid than the other, but also that they are contingent on one another. Without the existence of one, none of them exist.

So, perhaps a better approach to conversations with people in the competencies in which you are not, is to combine ideas to develop more comprehensive and intellectually rigorous understanding of reality.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 1:40:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 1:30:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 1:08:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:56:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:32:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I ground my belief system in economics and psychology first.

Then history is used as empirical evidence to demonstrate that the economics and psychology are correct. History can't really be used as strong evidence, since there are too many variables going on to derive much information. But it can be somewhat useful. Psychology and economics should be at least able to explain some history.

Philosophy for me is kind of has no/little use in my belief system. That is because our morality system is really just grounded in emotional and environmental programming and nothing more. It doesn't do much to study philosophy, because all morality is just one's subjective preference.

Are you aware that you've drawn a whole bunch of dubious philosophical conclusions here?

Hehehe, I suppose. I guess then my belief system is based little on philosophy rather then no philosophy.

Then you would admit that your political beliefs are irrational then being based purely on your likes and dislikes? Obviously if you're right all political beliefs are like that, but by your own admission you admit that yours are. What is political theory if not an extension of morality?

Correct, if you would define my political beliefs based purely on dislikes and likes 'irrational'.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 2:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 1:38:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

You're not bearing in the mind the mechanics of each competency. History, PolSci and Philo are all aspects of the same thing -- society.

Philosophy extends far outside society.
History is based on (what is accepted as) fact, because that's that it is. A study of historical accounts of what is accepted as fact.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is based on conclusions we've made about the world around us. Therefore, with the exception of concepts we're drawing conclusions about, obviously, we couldn't say that philosophy is empirical, because empirical evidence is objective observation, which does not satisfy the necessary constituents of a conclusion.

PolSci is the study of how we apply our philosophies to reality. For example, the moral foundation that results in the legislation we accept as law, or the societal construct (philosophical basis) that defines the margin of our society (empirical).

This means that, not only is one not any more valid than the other, but also that they are contingent on one another. Without the existence of one, none of them exist.

I don't know how you're able to draw this conclusion.

So, perhaps a better approach to conversations with people in the competencies in which you are not, is to combine ideas to develop more comprehensive and intellectually rigorous understanding of reality.

Yes, and I never stated that history and polisci have nothing to offer. The historian certainly knows more facts than me about historical circumstance and inevitably has greater insight into the modern era due to this. I'm just saying if we're in a political discussion I'm always disappointed by the lack of thought put into conceptual frameworks by people outside philosophy. This of course presupposes we're talking about what we should do in regard to a certain policy.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 2:14:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

anyone that knows me knows I like facts an history.

Bu theories are needed depending on the circumstance.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 2:19:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My opinions derive from the facts and from my Progressive ideology. However, history is important to explain your opinions with better justification.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 2:20:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 2:01:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 1:38:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

You're not bearing in the mind the mechanics of each competency. History, PolSci and Philo are all aspects of the same thing -- society.

Philosophy extends far outside society.

???

What do you mean?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 2:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 2:20:45 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/6/2012 2:01:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 1:38:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

You're not bearing in the mind the mechanics of each competency. History, PolSci and Philo are all aspects of the same thing -- society.

Philosophy extends far outside society.

???

What do you mean?

If we're talking about the fields of philosophy, then yes, philosophy deals with questions involving the ultimate nature of reality. It also deals with questions of epistemology - justified true belief - which would extend beyond a given society. The fact that philosophers have lived within societies cannot by itself rebut their claims.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 2:51:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:32:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I ground my belief system in economics and psychology first.

You can't possibly ground your belief system in those things. To even have access to economic and psychological evidence, you already have to be standing on a large web of prior beliefs about the validity of sense experience, the soundness of your own reasoning capacities, the validity of induction, the existence of external objects and so on. You haven't gone deep enough.

Philosophy for me is kind of has no/little use in my belief system. That is because our morality system is really just grounded in emotional and environmental programming and nothing more. It doesn't do much to study philosophy, because all morality is just one's subjective preference.

That's a nice philosophical conclusion you've just drawn, and probably not a very philosophically well justified one considering you've explicitly abandoned the study of philosophy.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 3:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

The practical application of the human experience trumps all theory, always, and since these applications are most visible and understandable in history, be it recent or distant, it is through history that we can judge the validity and value of a theory.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 3:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 3:46:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

The practical application of the human experience trumps all theory, always, and since these applications are most visible and understandable in history, be it recent or distant, it is through history that we can judge the validity and value of a theory.

Yes, you can certainly judge scientific theories through history but moral theories are of a different nature. What I'm saying is that we need to decide on a certain conceptual framework before we start incorporating facts - this would apply to really any policy discussion. These conceptual framework are really the groundwork for policy-making.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 4:03:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 3:57:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 3:46:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

The practical application of the human experience trumps all theory, always, and since these applications are most visible and understandable in history, be it recent or distant, it is through history that we can judge the validity and value of a theory.

Yes, you can certainly judge scientific theories through history but moral theories are of a different nature. What I'm saying is that we need to decide on a certain conceptual framework before we start incorporating facts - this would apply to really any policy discussion. These conceptual framework are really the groundwork for policy-making.

Perhaps as an overall objective, but before any theoretical implementation, a hard pragmatic look at it's application through historic data is of primary concern.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 4:06:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 4:03:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/6/2012 3:57:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 3:46:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

The practical application of the human experience trumps all theory, always, and since these applications are most visible and understandable in history, be it recent or distant, it is through history that we can judge the validity and value of a theory.

Yes, you can certainly judge scientific theories through history but moral theories are of a different nature. What I'm saying is that we need to decide on a certain conceptual framework before we start incorporating facts - this would apply to really any policy discussion. These conceptual framework are really the groundwork for policy-making.

Come on. You don't really expect policy-makers to implement ideas based on some obscure moral philosophers, do you?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 4:19:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 4:06:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/6/2012 4:03:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/6/2012 3:57:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 3:46:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

The practical application of the human experience trumps all theory, always, and since these applications are most visible and understandable in history, be it recent or distant, it is through history that we can judge the validity and value of a theory.

Yes, you can certainly judge scientific theories through history but moral theories are of a different nature. What I'm saying is that we need to decide on a certain conceptual framework before we start incorporating facts - this would apply to really any policy discussion. These conceptual framework are really the groundwork for policy-making.

Come on. You don't really expect policy-makers to implement ideas based on some obscure moral philosophers, do you?

Their ideas should be well grounded in moral philosophy. Whether this is the case, it's probably not for the most part.

Perhaps as an overall objective, but before any theoretical implementation, a hard pragmatic look at it's application through historic data is of primary concern.

How would you judge the success (morality) of the legalization of abortion through only a look at empirical facts?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 4:23:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 4:19:47 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 4:06:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/6/2012 4:03:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/6/2012 3:57:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 3:46:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

The practical application of the human experience trumps all theory, always, and since these applications are most visible and understandable in history, be it recent or distant, it is through history that we can judge the validity and value of a theory.

Yes, you can certainly judge scientific theories through history but moral theories are of a different nature. What I'm saying is that we need to decide on a certain conceptual framework before we start incorporating facts - this would apply to really any policy discussion. These conceptual framework are really the groundwork for policy-making.

Come on. You don't really expect policy-makers to implement ideas based on some obscure moral philosophers, do you?

Their ideas should be well grounded in moral philosophy. Whether this is the case, it's probably not for the most part.

Why?

Perhaps as an overall objective, but before any theoretical implementation, a hard pragmatic look at it's application through historic data is of primary concern.

How would you judge the success (morality) of the legalization of abortion through only a look at empirical facts?

whether it satisfied your subjective preference of whether you like the fact that abortions are legal or not.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 4:45:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 2:31:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 2:20:45 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/6/2012 2:01:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/6/2012 1:38:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:09:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know how many people are at Universities here, but there seems to be an interesting divide between how people from these fields approach subjects. Philosophy is really all theory, and I find you're generally discouraged from using empirical evidence in papers. History seems to be all about facts, and polisci seems to be a mix of the two? My experience outside philosophy is limited, but I was recently in a PoliSci course and definitely had to make some adjustments.

I'm obviously partial to philosophy having invested the last 3 years into it, and it troubles when me when history or polisci majors ignore the dominance of theory and believe themselves justified in deriving conclusions from facts without a massive amount of attention paid to the conceptual framework. Then again, I know the history/polisci majors will strike back saying that philosophers lack a sufficient degree historical and empirical knowledge which probably has some merit.

Your take? Which is more important, theories or facts? Philosophy or history?

You're not bearing in the mind the mechanics of each competency. History, PolSci and Philo are all aspects of the same thing -- society.

Philosophy extends far outside society.

???

What do you mean?

If we're talking about the fields of philosophy, then yes, philosophy deals with questions involving the ultimate nature of reality. It also deals with questions of epistemology - justified true belief - which would extend beyond a given society. The fact that philosophers have lived within societies cannot by itself rebut their claims.

I kind of meant global society.

I guess I should have said humanity. Epistemology deals with belief, which is fundamentally human. It isn't an impartial set of "facts," as history purports to be, or a study of how facts do, should, and can apply to humanity, as law is.

Accordingly, they all need each other.

Another way of putting it is that philosophy births laws that help write history.

Or, philosophy reflects perspectives that result in law, which shapes history.

Alright, how about this.

Tell me how any of the three can exist without one of them.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 4:51:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 2:01:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Yes, and I never stated that history and polisci have nothing to offer. The historian certainly knows more facts than me about historical circumstance and inevitably has greater insight into the modern era due to this. I'm just saying if we're in a political discussion I'm always disappointed by the lack of thought put into conceptual frameworks by people outside philosophy. This of course presupposes we're talking about what we should do in regard to a certain policy.

You know... when I say political science, I'm kind of thinking law, really. Not the rough overview of legislation, the legislative process, and political in general. I was talking about the philosophy that results in law, the formulation of law, and the practical application of law. You know -- law school.

If you're looking for someone who apply an intellectually rigorous interpretation of the conceptual frameworks that lead to certain political nuances, then you're looking for a Law student.

Historians... well, there is a lot they have to offer, but a comprehensive conceptual framework for their beliefs is not one of them, in my experience.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 5:14:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tell me how any of the three can exist without one of them.

That's actually a really funky question.

If there's no history then there's obviously no philosophy or PoliSci because there is no time. History wouldn't seem to be contingent on either the existence of philosophy or polisci. If philosophy doesn't exist then polisci doesn't exist. I suppose you could have philosophy without polisci it would just be much more limited.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 5:22:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 5:14:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Tell me how any of the three can exist without one of them.

That's actually a really funky question.

If there's no history then there's obviously no philosophy or PoliSci because there is no time.

Nonono.

History is what we accept is what lead to so many philosophies. In fact, philosophy is a huge part of historical study. Philosophy is maybe, 50% historical study, is it not? And, as you indicated, the rest is essentially epistemology.

History wouldn't seem to be contingent on either the existence of philosophy or polisci.

You're kidding.

Without philosophy or political science, what would historians study? :\ The unenlightened proletariat throughout the eons? xD

If philosophy doesn't exist then polisci doesn't exist. I suppose you could have philosophy without polisci it would just be much more limited.

So, you concede that a great deal of philosophy as it currently is encompasses political science?