The Study Of Philosophy Is A Waste Of Time By Kevin Steves

According to Simon Blackburn, philosophy can be different things depending on how it’s used, and it can be used many different ways. When used as a method, philosophy studies the same world as science, but uses rational arguments as proof rather than scientific observations. Although, when thought of as a subject matter rather than a method, philosophy becomes a specific area of study, trying to answer questions that have not yet been answered and concern humanity using the three foundational philosophical questions: what exists, what do we know, and what should we do. These are the basic questions philosophers use to prove their arguments. The third way to use philosophy, according to Blackburn, is

The writer gives three specific aspects of the “Legacy of the Scientific Revolution” which stem from the ideas of absolutism. The first part of the legacy is “the increasing presence of an attitude of mechanization toward the processes of nature” which is how machinery is applied to nature to help understand it better. This was done in many ways, one example is the invention of the first telescopes. In Holland lenses of different shapes were combined by eyeglass makers to see the sky more detailed than the naked eye could see (Lewis 359). The second phrase of the legacy is “an increasing attitude of mechanization toward the creation of knowledge, enshrining the process of rationalism and empiricism that would become the hallmarks of modern

　　In the essay “Reading and Thought”, Dwight MacDonlad talked about the kind of poor reading people are attached to in modern society. MacDonald believed reading materials such as Times and New York Times are too overwhelming for the readers. Readers tend to skim through the reading materials because most of the reading do not have any connections with their daily lives. Moreover, MacDoanld claimed that the readings people do these days are not thoughtful. The readings are rather irrelevant toward the readers. It is because the journalists to produce dull pieces of readings which are meant to be skimmed through without having too much thoughts involved. As the journalists do not have much consideration of the materials they produced. To the journalists the readings they produce are just a series of news that should be read driftly and left behind with no thoughful idea needed to be informed. These effects caused modern society to have a poor reading habits because people do not reflect and give time to think about the readings they did. Readers casually accept the readings even though they do not have provide any resourceful information for the readers.

"The increasing ability to reason, to abstract, and o inspect the nature of the real world around us is one of the key features of the Western thought and civilization, and the cornerstone of science, which is in turn the cornerstone of technology. If humankind loses the ability to hold rational beliefs, society will degenerate into a mass of reactionary, primitive bipeds."

Many people of 20th century though, turned for truth in the logic of science. It had made many things simpler for them and had offered them a better standard of living. Even so, as Cat’s Cradle demonstrates, their is both a good and evil side to science. When it is used with careless negligence, the results of manipulating nature can be formidable. It is a tool, and must be used with respect for others. Because of this, there is ultimately a limit to the truth many people search for in this field; although we can advance through science and exploration, it doesn’t take into account human ethics and morals. It therefore doesn’t offer meaning, and it doesn’t offer happiness. One must search for those realizations from

Under the research of J. Michael Bishop, Science is being defended and explored for positive and negative out comes in the past years, to form an argument against the critics who believe science is no longer the answer. Throughout the article I discovered quality examples that support claims of ethos, pathos, and logos. Logos being the most reoccurring from of argument that Bishop chose, in my opinion reveals a stronger argument rather than one that has an argument revolved around pathos.

The scientific method is a process of acquiring new knowledge and to find reasoning in a given hypothesis. The scientific method is also explained as the collection and correlation of data through observation, experimentation and formulating and testing a hypothesis. Only some university students are able to learn and practice the scientific method whilst at university. This essay will provide four arguments on why only some students are able to learn and practice the scientific method at University. These arguments include the student’s choice of studying a science degree and practically learning the scientific method. Or the willingness of the student to acquire a new knowledge and find reasoning; we explore this idea through a brief knowledge of the social enlightenment and the resulting change in social behaviour and authority rebellion.   Also we look at the difference in the academic disciplines encountered at university; science, arts, commerce and humanities, each discipline containing a varying approach to learning and acquiring the scientific method in relation to new knowledge. Finally we will explore how those whom do not study a science

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

This first point begins with a discussion on modern day views on science in a modern society versus the spiritual based beliefs of old. In ancient days there was a natural understanding of a higher moral order. This understanding has been forsaken in modern American culture. 80% of Current Western culture argues that it is each persons right to define their own set of moral law and

In the essay, Russell presents the study of philosophy as a valuable undertaking, even though it does not directly help the whole world or increase one’s material wealth. The value is to be found for the student of philosophy herself or himself. This value is primarily found in the intellectual development that is available for those who undertake the study philosophy. They can escape narrowness, dogmatism, and narrowness as they become citizens of the world, with enriched intellectual capacities. Russell concludes with the idea that the mind becomes enlarged through the study of philosophy.

For most of Western society, philosophy is a product of Ancient Greece that deals with questions on the workings of reality and what is considered virtuous or logical. However, this view of philosophy is exclusive and does not tell the entire story of philosophy’s history. In reality, philosophy is the product of humans

Upon talking about the history of modern philosophy, one of the most important philosophers, who is considered as the father of the philosophy in this period, is Descartes. He was a pioneer for the movement of the new trend of philosophy and became a break between the medieval philosophy and the modern philosophy. Being educated in the environment of medieval philosophy, specifically in the school of Jesuits, Descartes received the system of scholastic philosophy as his foundation for making a new start into the history of philosophy. In his life, Descartes tried to establish a system of philosophy which was suitable to the development of society and science. To do that, he did not collapse pre-philosophical systems, but somehow he ignored their values. In his Meditations he says “Once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences.” Therefore, he just could begin a new system of philosophy which, he thought, would be a certain and firm foundation to get knowledge. However, to build up the principles for this foundation, Descartes had to use the concept of God in his arguments. The existence of God became an important means for the construction of his new philosophical system. Hence, I will emphasize on the importance of God in this paper by discovering the role of God as a means in Descartes’ main points of reasoning, particularly God with the method of

Russell initiates his argument of the distinct values of philosophy by discussing the “practical man”. According to Russell, the “practical man” is mainly aware of physical necessities—such as shelter and food—but is ignorant of the mind needing nourishment (Russell 11). In other words, constantly feeding the brain, therefore gaining intellect is just as important as obtaining “physical goods”. Russell then proceeds onto explaining how philosophy has not been able to answer the questions that people in this discipline have brought

We as a culture have become entirely numb to the beauty that comes with living a simple and observant life. The saying that ignorance is bliss does come from very real sentiment, some of which our dynamic society could benefit from. Since the birth of capitalism and enlightenment, which were well enough intentioned at the start, mankind has isolated itself from life as much as it has tried to control and understand it. In a superficial mission to become closer to the earth and better enjoy life, we have lost its true meaning. Instead of simply taking delight in the wonders of the world, we have mathematized its essence and extracted the mystery that makes the human experience so rewarding. Although the knowledge gained over the past 400 years has been profitable and constructive, with all the progress comes a greater evil. Congruent to Vico’s concerns with this new found urgency for advancement, I find that the knowledge that we hold dear and fight so passionately for brings such pain and anger. One must wonder if we are better off living peacefully in the dark than scrambling through chaos grasping for fleeting

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.