This HALFWIT should have studied geography rather than philosophy, because he knows nothing of the former.
In his article entitled 'How Muslims Made Europe' he states the following:
'Charlemagne's rule included at its high point most of France, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands, the west of Germany, Italy as far south as Rome, a strip in the north of Spain, and parts of Hungary....at nearly three and a half million square miles, it was larger than the continental United States.'
Problem is, he's completely (and quite obviously) wrong. Charlemagnes empire at it's height was 1.2 million square kilometres. The 48 continental united states (not including alaska etc) are over 8 million square kilometres. That's almost SEVEN times the size. Even if he had conquered all of europe up the the borders of russia he would still only be halfway to the size of the US.
So this 'brilliant' man has no actual grasp of basic things like the size of countries, or how to check 'facts'.
and the whole usa and europe together are only a minority to the rest of the world - count the ppl - count the square kilometers but nevertheless most inhabitants in the minority get the impression to be in the centre of the world lol -
First, science means knowledge, not necessarily empirical observations ie natural science. So there is nothing unscientific in what was said. Second, ah...we need professors of ethics because governments need to be held accountable. The people are too easily swayed.
In ancient Greece, Science just meant a pursuit of knowledge (a dog smelling another dogs butt could be considered a science by this definition). However the term has evolved to mean much more than that, and for the past 1000+ years the term science strictly refers to the scientific method. Unless he's talking in ancient greek, his use of the term science to describe his philosophy is extremely improper.
No. The word science comes from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. The word science still has numerous meanings, for it is applied to things such as social, political,ethical, mathematical, gemetrical and natural. These are all considered sciences because they have their foundations yet are built upon in a methodical way. In natural science this method involves things like experimentation and falsification. There is nothing improper about talking about ethical science.
Since the advent of the scientific method, the term has referred stictly to those studies which deal with observable, quantifiable phenomena. Any usages that refer to abstract, philosophical pursuits of knowledge as science are completely archaic. We can forgive the usages for fields like political science, which are ancient themselves. But if someone today invokes science and is simply referring to their philosophy, they need to qualify their usage of science as being classical science...
...because the modern usage is drastically, drastically different.
Despite the roots of science as being philosophical, its improper to use it in that broadest sense today. Its like if I were to call myself a 'doctor' and demand that everyone else called me doctor...
But when pressed, it turns out i'm only a 'doctor' according to the classical usage which meant teacher (based on the fact that i 'taught' my 4 year old brother how to play videogames). Speaking in these terms today would be patently dishonest, despite the fact that historically and etymologically wise, I wouldnt be incorrect. Its just a matter of me being honest and properly representing my self and my views.
Well ethics is as old as politics! Aristotle's Politics was meant to be read after his Ethics! If we date the scientific revolution and modern method to, say, late 16th Century, with the work of Francis Bacon and others, science did not excliusively mean natural sciences, and it did not unanimously get that meaning until the 19th Century. All the same, to simply declare scienece to consist only in natural science is arbitrary. The positivist definition is falling out of fashion as we speak.
Its not arbitrary at all. The original model has naturally evolved over time in order to better obtain actual knowledge. Waxing philospohic did not yield any useful, verifiable data. Thus the scientific method came into usage and its main tennets are that the phenomena in question must be observable and quantifiable. Abstract, metaphysical propositions, such as ethics are not recognized under modern scientific standards because there is nothing verifiable we can gain from them.
...For ex. take the hypothesis "its unethical for people to blink"..... is it possible to test this statements truth value? is there any real knowledge to be found in an unprovable/undisprovable proposition such as this? if not, then it isnt scientific and it isnt useful to study.
Ethics is not science, it's philosophy. Studying ethics as a scientific discipline is as successful as studying science as a theological discipline: rarely successful. "It is ethically good to blink", "Life is valuable", "We ought to save lives", have deep meanings (with which many of us agree) that go beyond the scientific.
What really isn't useful is to attempt to use the scientific method in all instances, or to classify (like you do) some knowledge as useless.
What Mr. Appiah attempts to explain here is not that ethics is science; but that science is useful to ethics or to ethical pursuits, including saving lives.
what about logic and mathematics? Scientists use these all the time,but the knowledge of these don't depend on scientific experiment.Your use of the verification principle and logical positivism is obsolete,its bad philosophy, not good science.I would agree that ethics and metaphysics(and I would also include logic and mathematics)are issues that are not part of what we refer to as science, but that just means that scientists are outside their area of expertise(as scientists) .
Good point, born. I'd add that when someone in the humanities uses the word "science" to describe their field, they are usually dressing up their knowledge in the borrowed and ill-fitting plumes of the natural sciences to add heft to their theory, which lacks a criterion of correctness and is immune from falsification. So armchair speculation can pass for truth more easily.
Why the fuck do we have professors of philosophy when all thats needed in this world is to encourage the uptake of ethical thinking. Ethics = determining a course of action that is best for oneself, one's family and friends and humanity collectively. Of course humans can be conditioned to do almost anything.
If ethics is as easy as determining what's best for us and those around us, why do we have wars, divorces, and children who don't to parents or neighbors who don't get along? Ethics is based on the higher understanding that there are actions that transcend our basic desires. Ethical acts are the ones not driven by ego but driven by a combination of community needs and future perserverance. We may commit acts that feed our ego now but have damaging effects to ourselves and others later.
The latest book by Derek Parfit called "On What Matters" supposedly makes a strong case for objective ethics.
ZombieLincoln666 1 month ago
This HALFWIT should have studied geography rather than philosophy, because he knows nothing of the former.
In his article entitled 'How Muslims Made Europe' he states the following:
'Charlemagne's rule included at its high point most of France, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands, the west of Germany, Italy as far south as Rome, a strip in the north of Spain, and parts of Hungary....at nearly three and a half million square miles, it was larger than the continental United States.'
maureenOWW 2 years ago
Problem is, he's completely (and quite obviously) wrong. Charlemagnes empire at it's height was 1.2 million square kilometres. The 48 continental united states (not including alaska etc) are over 8 million square kilometres. That's almost SEVEN times the size. Even if he had conquered all of europe up the the borders of russia he would still only be halfway to the size of the US.
So this 'brilliant' man has no actual grasp of basic things like the size of countries, or how to check 'facts'.
maureenOWW 2 years ago
and the whole usa and europe together are only a minority to the rest of the world - count the ppl - count the square kilometers but nevertheless most inhabitants in the minority get the impression to be in the centre of the world lol -
TalmaPai 2 years ago
cocksucker loud voice on the phone
bampaz 3 years ago
oh fuck
saveourcar 3 years ago
thanks for posting this.
stinkinfishguts 3 years ago
First, science means knowledge, not necessarily empirical observations ie natural science. So there is nothing unscientific in what was said. Second, ah...we need professors of ethics because governments need to be held accountable. The people are too easily swayed.
stevechavura 3 years ago
In ancient Greece, Science just meant a pursuit of knowledge (a dog smelling another dogs butt could be considered a science by this definition). However the term has evolved to mean much more than that, and for the past 1000+ years the term science strictly refers to the scientific method. Unless he's talking in ancient greek, his use of the term science to describe his philosophy is extremely improper.
borntokill 3 years ago
No. The word science comes from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. The word science still has numerous meanings, for it is applied to things such as social, political,ethical, mathematical, gemetrical and natural. These are all considered sciences because they have their foundations yet are built upon in a methodical way. In natural science this method involves things like experimentation and falsification. There is nothing improper about talking about ethical science.
stevechavura 3 years ago
Since the advent of the scientific method, the term has referred stictly to those studies which deal with observable, quantifiable phenomena. Any usages that refer to abstract, philosophical pursuits of knowledge as science are completely archaic. We can forgive the usages for fields like political science, which are ancient themselves. But if someone today invokes science and is simply referring to their philosophy, they need to qualify their usage of science as being classical science...
borntokill 3 years ago
...because the modern usage is drastically, drastically different.
Despite the roots of science as being philosophical, its improper to use it in that broadest sense today. Its like if I were to call myself a 'doctor' and demand that everyone else called me doctor...
borntokill 3 years ago
But when pressed, it turns out i'm only a 'doctor' according to the classical usage which meant teacher (based on the fact that i 'taught' my 4 year old brother how to play videogames). Speaking in these terms today would be patently dishonest, despite the fact that historically and etymologically wise, I wouldnt be incorrect. Its just a matter of me being honest and properly representing my self and my views.
borntokill 3 years ago
Well ethics is as old as politics! Aristotle's Politics was meant to be read after his Ethics! If we date the scientific revolution and modern method to, say, late 16th Century, with the work of Francis Bacon and others, science did not excliusively mean natural sciences, and it did not unanimously get that meaning until the 19th Century. All the same, to simply declare scienece to consist only in natural science is arbitrary. The positivist definition is falling out of fashion as we speak.
stevechavura 3 years ago
Its not arbitrary at all. The original model has naturally evolved over time in order to better obtain actual knowledge. Waxing philospohic did not yield any useful, verifiable data. Thus the scientific method came into usage and its main tennets are that the phenomena in question must be observable and quantifiable. Abstract, metaphysical propositions, such as ethics are not recognized under modern scientific standards because there is nothing verifiable we can gain from them.
borntokill 3 years ago
...For ex. take the hypothesis "its unethical for people to blink"..... is it possible to test this statements truth value? is there any real knowledge to be found in an unprovable/undisprovable proposition such as this? if not, then it isnt scientific and it isnt useful to study.
borntokill 3 years ago
Ethics is not science, it's philosophy. Studying ethics as a scientific discipline is as successful as studying science as a theological discipline: rarely successful. "It is ethically good to blink", "Life is valuable", "We ought to save lives", have deep meanings (with which many of us agree) that go beyond the scientific.
What really isn't useful is to attempt to use the scientific method in all instances, or to classify (like you do) some knowledge as useless.
michaelretriever 2 years ago
What Mr. Appiah attempts to explain here is not that ethics is science; but that science is useful to ethics or to ethical pursuits, including saving lives.
michaelretriever 2 years ago 3
@borntokill
what about logic and mathematics? Scientists use these all the time,but the knowledge of these don't depend on scientific experiment.Your use of the verification principle and logical positivism is obsolete,its bad philosophy, not good science.I would agree that ethics and metaphysics(and I would also include logic and mathematics)are issues that are not part of what we refer to as science, but that just means that scientists are outside their area of expertise(as scientists) .
TangomanX2008 2 years ago
Good point, born. I'd add that when someone in the humanities uses the word "science" to describe their field, they are usually dressing up their knowledge in the borrowed and ill-fitting plumes of the natural sciences to add heft to their theory, which lacks a criterion of correctness and is immune from falsification. So armchair speculation can pass for truth more easily.
JoeyFudd 3 years ago
Sorry, Ethics
HaoSci 3 years ago
I thought it was Science of Ethnics noth the philosophy of Ethics.
HaoSci 3 years ago
Why the fuck do we have professors of philosophy when all thats needed in this world is to encourage the uptake of ethical thinking. Ethics = determining a course of action that is best for oneself, one's family and friends and humanity collectively. Of course humans can be conditioned to do almost anything.
trulynot 4 years ago
If ethics is as easy as determining what's best for us and those around us, why do we have wars, divorces, and children who don't to parents or neighbors who don't get along? Ethics is based on the higher understanding that there are actions that transcend our basic desires. Ethical acts are the ones not driven by ego but driven by a combination of community needs and future perserverance. We may commit acts that feed our ego now but have damaging effects to ourselves and others later.
priorzola 3 years ago
You have deconstructed your own rhetoric :o)
trulynot 3 years ago