Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JayUtah
Philosophy by its nature pervades all human thought. That does not mean that every argument than can be made from a philosophical standpoint is immediately helpful or applicable to any particular question, any more than the fact that air pervades the surface of the Earth demands that every observation we make consider the effect of air. Philosophy is universal because it defines itself to be, not because it is equally helpful in all cases.
|
I agree that philosophical arguments are likely to be useless in, say, most criminal investigations or scientific probes. It's not philosophy's business to establish the truth of empirical claims. However, such a probe is not quite what is being conducted on this forum. I myself believe that the probe has already been conducted by competent people working on the field and that the "official" account of 911 has been established beyond reasonable doubt. So the probe is finished. I see no evidence of a conspiracy of any kind at any level. Here, however, is the place to talk *about* the probe and the process of empirical discovery, and thus to make claims not only about the evidence and its soundness (technical points) but also about the nature of evidence (philosophical points.)
Why do many intelligent people buy into those conspiracy theories when so much evidence appears to us to disprove their claims decisively? Appeals to philosophy can bring light to such questions. A more scientistic approach would appeal to psychological and sociological facts instead. But such approaches rely on more evidence of a different nature and do not throw so much light on the nature of truth and evidence themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JayUtah
Obviously our study, for example, of conspiracist rhetoric and reason falls more squarely into philosophy than does, say, metallurgy. But I'm not opposed to the use of philosophy where it may be justly applied; I'm opposed to the obfuscation of what are (or ought to be) straightforward questions by the unnecessary and evasive invocation of esoteric philosophical arguments. Philosophy of language, for example, has its value. But to deploy a philosophy of language argument to avoid having to answer an uncomfortable question smells of evasion. It is not the application of philosophy were it belongs that frustrates us; it is the application of it where it doesn't belong.
|
OK, I understand what irritates you. I tend to agree. Still, philosophy belongs here even as it risks being misapplied -- just as technical arguments are also likely to be abused of misapplied by overly confident people on any side of the fence.