Study explores the meaning of humanoid sex robots

Study explores the meaning of humanoid sex robots
“Rather than the usual pictures of humanoid sex robots and sex dolls that many news outlets and magazines have already shown, we like to think that our research is captured by this painting by Magritte. The words in the painting say: “this is not a pipe.” Magritte’s painting nicely conveys the idea that representation is not the same as reality. Humanoid sex robots are and always will be representations of humans, not the real thing,” the researchers said. Credit: ‘The Treachery of Images’ (René Magritte, 1929).

In recent years, sex dolls have become increasing sophisticated and realistic in their resemblance to human beings, including mechanized components, and are thus now referred to as humanoid sex robots. Some media outlets have gone as far as to suggest that sex robots and other social robots will eventually become almost indistinguishable from humans.

This has sparked a number of interesting ethical and philosophical debates related to the significance of these robots and the possibility that future machines will replicate the physical intimacy between two people. In a recent study featured in Springer's International Journal of Social Robotics, two researchers at the University of Virginia and the University of Bergamo in Italy have taken a closer look at some of the current arguments and predictions about sex robots, carrying out an ethics-based and critical discourse analysis.

"We started our joint research to debunk some myths and misunderstandings in the media regarding the future of artificial intelligence," Deborah Johnson and Mario Verdicchio, the two researchers who carried out the study, told TechXplore. "We were struck by how fundamentally flawed some of the ideas were and especially the assumption that the computational version of some aspects of reality are the same as the real thing."

In their paper, Johnson and Verdicchio essentially challenge the perception of humanoid sex robots as robotic substitutes of lovers and companions. They argue that although humanoid robots may look and act more and more like human beings in the future, the claim that they will eventually replace humans is far-fetched and far from a certainty.

"Our research is aimed at showing that humanoid sex robots could come to be understood in ways that keep their status as machines, albeit technologically very sophisticated machines." Johnson and Verdicchio said.

Johnson and Verdiccio analyzed the current discourse about sex robots adopting an anticipatory ethics approach. They tried to imagine how still under development could come to be understood in the future and how this current development could be steered, in order to maximize the positive impact of these tools and minimize negative effects.

"One of our key arguments, which applies to humanoid sex robots, but also to all other technological objects in general, is that technology does not develop in isolation; it is shaped by cultural notions, societal values and conceptual frameworks," Johnson and Verdicchio said. "In other words, humanoid sex robots are not coming to us out of the blue: social forces are shaping their design and their meaning."

The critical analysis carried out by the researchers shows that there are many possible future trajectories for the development of humanoid sex robots, all of which will unavoidably be influenced by social concepts and values. This means that the argument that humanoid sex robots will eventually become substitutes for human partners is far from inevitable.

"Our analysis seeks to clarify what is already happening, rather than finding something new," Johnson and Verdicchio said. "In a way, we would be happy if our readers 'discovered' that social and public ways of thinking about and conceptualizing technological objects like sex robots have a much stronger influence on how such products are designed and deployed by companies than they might have thought before reading our piece."

The study carried out by Johnson and Verdicchio provides new theoretical insight about the possible significance of sex robots and the meaning that is or could be attributed to these machines by human beings. Their observations suggest that the extreme scenarios sometimes depicted in the media are far from certain or inevitable. In their future work, the researchers will try to debunk other myths and misunderstandings in the media regarding the future of artificial intelligence (AI).

"Firstly, we will take a more technological research path, going more in depth into the latest trends in artificial intelligence: machine learning and neural networks," Johnson and Verdicchio said. "A lot has already been said about them, but we are not quite satisfied to accept them as 'black boxes' that work and give us results without showing us how such results are obtained. Instead, we would very much like to open those boxes for more clarity."

In addition to investigating other technology-related topics , Johnson and Verdicchio plan to carry out philosophical studies that explore issues such as responsibility and ethics in AI decision-making. The researchers are also interested in exploring the concept of 'otherness," particularly in the context of technological stand-ins.


Explore further

Researchers use machine learning to teach robots how to trek through unknown terrains

More information: Deborah G. Johnson et al. Constructing the Meaning of Humanoid Sex Robots, International Journal of Social Robotics (2019). DOI: 10.1007/s12369-019-00586-z

© 2019 Science X Network

Citation: Study explores the meaning of humanoid sex robots (2019, September 27) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://techxplore.com/news/2019-09-explores-humanoid-sex-robots.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
129 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 27, 2019
"Ph.D. University of Kansas (Philosophy) 1976
Deborah G. Johnson recently retired as the Anne Shirley Carter Olsson Professor of Applied Ethics"

"Mario Verdicchio
University of Bergamo, Italy
Artificial IntelligencePhilosophy of ComputingComputer Art"

-Philos should understand sex toys pretty well. Formal philosophy has always been an unhealthy surrogate for real science and intellectual inquiry.

Sep 28, 2019
Formal philosophy has always been an unhealthy surrogate for real science and intellectual inquiry.


Formal philosophy is the substrate of science. Science is a philosophy itself - a method of inquiry based on certain formal philosophical principles about how to obtain knowledge, what knowledge is, how knowledge is tested etc.

Ignoring philosophy as the groundworks of science is taking science as a religion where the rules and methods come out of nowhere, are self-justified, dogmatic like words of god. It's just going through the motions without understanding or even bothering to ask what you are doing.

Sep 28, 2019
Your philosophical notions define how you perceive the data that you collect from your surroundings.

For a simple example, are you a physicalist or a phenomenalist? One is the notion that everything is physical - the other is that physical objects do not exist in and of themselves. One could say, "this is a table", the other could say "this is a collection of atoms" or break it down even further to quantum waves etc.

Both are ignoring some aspects of reality in their analysis, and creating fictions to stand in for the aspects of reality they cannot comprehend, yet for any practical purposes you have to choose how to view reality in order to have useful information about it. What is useful is again a matter of philosophy.

So it all falls back to philosophy. Even saying "I have no philosophy", is a philosophy, because you make the argument of having no fixed method of understanding reality, which ironically IS a method when you stick to it.

Sep 28, 2019
Formal philosophy is the substrate of science
-NO its NOT. It was the bullshit placeholder that took the place of religion after the enlightenment, until real science could actually produce answers. It enabled the intelligencia to pretend they knew things they didn't. It kept them from having to say 'we dont know'.

The metaphysical is the surrogate for the afterlife. Consciousness the surrogate for the soul. Smart people are suckers for immortality too ya know?

Formal philosophy NEVER answered anything or produced anything of value.
phenomenalist
-Thanks - nice example of a worthless, meaningless philo word.
Even saying "I have no philosophy", is a philosophy
-Formal academic philojunk is NOT personal philosophy. Only philos will cite kant and heidegger when discussing their personal beliefs.

Sep 28, 2019
Ignoring philosophy as the groundworks of science is taking science as a religion
Uh no it's just the opposite. Letting philo discussions into science, like our late mystical poster friend noumenon used to do, is turning science into a religion.
Your philosophical notions define how you perceive the data that you collect from your surroundings
No this is what a shameless philo acadeemie would say when he was trying to imply he had something meaningful to say about science. He doesnt. The scientific method is NOT philosophy. It was the result of extricating science FROM religion and philosophy.

What do philos know about sex robots? Do they gather data and run experiments like masters and johnson did? No they sit on their asses and write papers citing studies by real scientists, and kant. Real scientists never consult them, never reference them except to colorize their prefaces like einstein did with god.

Sep 28, 2019
Ignoring philosophy as the groundworks of science is taking science as a religion where the rules and methods come out of nowhere, are self-justified, dogmatic
THIS is EXACTLY what formal academic philosophy IS.

You're implying that questions like 'what is the meaning of life', 'why are we here', or 'what is the nature of knowledge' are actually valid questions needing or having answers. They don't. They're unresolvable nonsense that priests and philos always use to commandeer dialogues they can turn into endless displays of esoterica. They're deception. Trickery. Science has no use for them and cringes when they are asked.

"Well how can you discuss kant if you dont understand the CoPR?"-Noumenon used to say. Another trick question. Its gibberish. It's all gibberish.
Ignoring philosophy as the groundworks of science
-And which -ism might that be? Ding an Sich or shadows on a cave wall? Be specific.

Sep 28, 2019
As humans, we can follow the banners of science, philosophy, and theology in any manner or blend as we see fit. It begs the question on how futuristic AI's will carry on this trait. Will they become our better scientists, philosophers, and priests? I think I've read an article awhile ago on this site citing robots already working in religious uses.

quick edit. yep here it is
https://techxplor...xts.html

Sep 28, 2019
As humans, we can follow the banners of science, philosophy, and theology in any manner or blend as we see fit
NO we cant. The Inquisition is now illegal, except in the US congress. Nazi philosophy is currently in disfavor. Religionists will always want their particular sect to be the only one, and will want to force the issue on pain of torture and death if necessary. That's how much their eternal souls are worth to them.
I think I've read an article awhile ago on this site citing robots already working in religious uses
You can buy one of your own
https://www.thepi...QAvD_BwE

Sep 28, 2019
In related news

"KABUL (Reuters) - The Taliban cut off Safiullah Safi's right forefinger for voting in 2014. That did not stop the businessman from doing it again."

"CHICAGO (Politico 2030) - The US Party of Everybody cut off ottos right forefinger for voting republican. Again."

Sep 28, 2019
The Inquisition is now illegal, except in the US congress.


We should pit politicians and media faces off in more of a prime time setting. Thinking a Chef Ramsay-esque cooking show competition should be in order. Then at least we can see if trump can do more than pick the pickles off his fast food sandwiches.

Sep 28, 2019
-NO its NOT. It was the bullshit placeholder that took the place of religion after the enlightenment


It seems you have absolutely no idea what philosophy is or what it means, and you're talking about philosophy in the same schizophrenic way as scientologists talk about psychiatry.

(Hubbard believed psychiatrists were evil for declaring him insane)

Sep 28, 2019
You're implying that questions like 'what is the meaning of life', 'why are we here', or 'what is the nature of knowledge' are actually valid questions needing or having answers. They don't. They're unresolvable nonsense that priests and philos always use to commandeer dialogues they can turn into endless displays of esoterica. They're deception. Trickery. Science has no use for them and cringes when they are asked.


Science itself was at one point called "Natural philosophy". Science is a philosophy that evolved and developed through millenia as people asked the questions like "why are we here?" and sought different methods of investigating the question.

If you didn't ask the question "what is the nature of knowledge", then you couldn't have science in the first place - or rather, you couldn't even begin to attempt to tell science from not-science. How do you know that you know anything? What is your demarcation criteria?

Simply assuming you know is a religion.

Sep 28, 2019
Without philosophical investigation into the nature of knowledge, you can't tell science from pseudo-science and all the metaphysical woo mongers and Lysenko-like charlatans could easily run the whole thing to the ground by using arbitrary criteria for knowledge and claiming that they're doing real science. After all, who can say otherwise?

For example, the falsifiability criterion: if your claims cannot be proven to be false even in principle, you aren't doing science. If you put yourself into a position where you cannot be show to be wrong, then you can't know whether your claims are ever correct. This is a result of philosophical investigations into the nature of knowledge, and this wasn't actually part of the scientific method until very recently.

Philosophy is exactly what separates science from religion: philosophy asks the questions, where religion merely dictates answers.


Sep 28, 2019
The scientific method is NOT philosophy. It was the result of extricating science FROM religion and philosophy.


By that statement, you reveal yourself to be completely deluded or misguided. Science was never "extracted" from philosophy. It IS philosophy - the search for knowledge. Science as a philosophy also makes certain unfounded claims about reality, such as "all things that exist are fundamentally knowable", which has to be assumed or otherwise science kinda loses its point. But do you want to assert that as a dogma? With what authority?

Thinking that science as it is understood now is the end-all-be-all is exactly turning the current philosophy of science into a religion. Other philosophical arguments are changing science all the time, and shutting them out as "philobabble" is like writing your own Bible.


Sep 28, 2019
It would be very interesting to hear what Otto considers to actually BE science, and at what point it turns into "philobabble"? Are everyone after Karl Popper heretics of science?

But of course, asking the question is difficult because:
Only philos will cite kant and heidegger when discussing their personal beliefs.


So you can have personal beliefs, which may or may not agree with what other people have already said, but you can't cite your sources to save time explaining it all. Otherwise you're a "philo". Got it.

It seems your beliefs and personal methods of inquiry are only genuine and "scientific" if you don't know where you got them from, and can't name the people who first figured out the same things. Please also tell me that you've come up with your ideas and opinions all by yourself...

Sep 28, 2019
By that statement, you reveal yourself to be completely deluded or misguided. Science was never "extracted" from philosophy
Not extracted. Extricated.
"Extricate definition is - to free or remove from an entanglement or difficulty." Words mean things you know?

Philosophy- that being people sitting around discussing things and pontificating to bleary-eyed students in captivity - was never explaining ANYTHING. it was abandoned by people who actually wanted to expend the effort to experiment and gather data and analyse it methodically.
"why are we here?"
No SCIENTIST does research or conducts experiments to answer idiot non-questions like THIS.
If you didn't ask the question "what is the nature of knowledge"
There IS no nature of knowledge. It's a trap, a nonsense concept, an endless source of income for shysters and posers.
falsifiability
-is science, not philosophy. But then to the proper philo, EVERYTHING is philosophy, right? An important clue.

Sep 28, 2019
"why are we here?"
No SCIENTIST does research or conducts experiments to answer idiot non-questions like THIS.


Tell that to evolutionary biologists, or cosmologists.

There IS no nature of knowledge. It's a trap, a nonsense concept

Then how do you separate knowledge from mere belief or assertion? "Nature of knowledge" refers to that crucial difference - how do you know that you know?

Sep 28, 2019
falsifiability


-is science, not philosophy.


That's abusing the word "science", and the whole concept of falsifiability comes from philosophy, is a part of a particular philosophy of science. It doesn't exists "ex nihilo", and it isnt -necessarily- part of science. Criticism of the falsifiability criterion include the argument that non-falsifiable claims may still be correct - just that they cannot be falsified in the present paradigm of science which might deny the means to do so due to other assumptions. Therefore, it is a good idea but ultimately not a rule written in stone. Science can change.

https://en.wikipe...iability
The concept was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper. He saw falsifiability as the logical part and the cornerstone of his scientific epistemology, which sets the limits of scientific inquiry.



Sep 28, 2019
Notice that I'm not claiming philosophy cannot be abused, especially by well-versed bullshit mongers, to pervert and mislead scientific inquiry. That happens.

That however is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. It's just that your claim, Otto, of philosophy being entirely worthless and misleading, is totally unwarranted and a grave misunderstanding of what philosophy is.

I stand by my statement that you are handling the whole concept of "philosophy" in a distorted way, as if you have your own definition and perception of the whole field that does not match reality. You have constructed your own bogeyman out of it and it looks very much like the ravings of a schizophrenic maniac. It's like watching some redneck ranting about "them socialists".


Sep 28, 2019
That is actually a thing that people sometimes do. It's called the explaining by naming fallacy.

It's the case where a person falsely assumes that because they have provided a name for some event of behavior they think they are observing, they have also adequately explained the event or behavior. The name or label becomes to stand in for the explanation, which is no longer needed because you can just say "philosophers" or "socialists", or "fascists", "communists", "capitalists", "atheists", etc. without examining what is actually meant by the term.

If you replace the term with the proper definition, it becomes clear that the person does not talk about the actual thing they're referring to, but rather they have their own private definition which may simply carry the ominous and indefinite feeling of something evil which is associated to the term by some cognitive leap or distortion.


Sep 28, 2019
And that said, it is entirely possible that the present state of academic philosophy IS what Otto is claiming. There's the whole science wars still going on where political interests are trying to pervert science in part through philosophy to argue things that are patently anti-science and anti-reason.

But that is properly called "sophism", not "philosophy".

Sep 28, 2019
Tell that to evolutionary biologists, or cosmologists
So name a study or paper that is exploring specifically the premise 'We're here because - why?' Included in its title, or synopsis, or even discussed by the researchers.
It seems you have absolutely no idea what philosophy is
I started to compile a few examples to demonstrate to you what philo actually IS, as opposed to what it SAYS it is, starting with the CoPD and meandering thru some heidegger and schopenhauer and a little liebnitz or whatever I might find which demonstrates that it's actually pretentious GIBBERISH.

But not tonite. Musk is livestreaming soon.

Sep 28, 2019
Philosophy- that being people sitting around discussing things and pontificating to bleary-eyed students in captivity - was never explaining ANYTHING.


The point of academic philosophy is to TEACH students about how to DO philosophy, about the history and the discoveries of pure reason, not to hammer definite answers into their heads. It doesn't explain anything about reality per se because its purpose is to teach the practice, show which arguments have already been used and to what effect, and leave the application to the students themselves.

Sep 28, 2019
I started to compile a few examples to demonstrate to you what philo actually IS, as opposed to what it SAYS it is,


No. What you've provided is what YOU say philosophy is, which isn't what philosophy IS. What you're saying is that philosophers are all just sophists.

that it's actually pretentious GIBBERISH


"I don't understand it, therefore it's false."

Some philosophy is gibberish. Philosophers do not necessarily produce valid philosophy. In fact, earlier philosophers have already identified as pseudo-philosophy that which:

1) has a preference for useless speculation
2) appeals primarily to human authority
3) appeals to tradition rather than reason
4) confuses superstition with philosophy
5) emphasises obscure and enigmatic language and symbolism

That's a definition from the 18th century.

Sep 28, 2019
starting with the CoPD and meandering thru some heidegger and schopenhauer and a little liebnitz or whatever I might find which demonstrates that it's actually pretentious GIBBERISH.


That's like taking a bunch of scientists before Einstein and pointing out that they were all misguided. Well duh. Philosophy advances. You might as well complain that Aristotle or Plato got it wrong, therefore all philosophy is bullcrap.

I already addressed this point by asking you what you consider to be "correct science" and where it turns into "philobabble". At which philosopher do you draw the line? Popper? Kuhn?

Also, if you take someone like Bertrand Russel and complain that they're being pretentious because they write in a way that seems overly elaborate to the point of being obscure, that's just you being a tone police. You don't attack the content of the argument, but the style of the argument. Being overly expressive and self-important, or exaggerating, does not mean you are wrong.

Sep 28, 2019
So name a study or paper that is exploring specifically the premise 'We're here because - why?' Included in its title, or synopsis, or even discussed by the researchers.


What would that prove?

For the request, there are a host of papers discussing the anthropic principle as an example, which is fundamentally a discussion on the point of "why are we here" presented in the form of "why is the universe such that we are here". The discussion ranges from probabilistic arguments in multiverses to arguing that the universe is a simulation, and then some.

In any case, the fact that we are observing a universe, or the fact that we are, tells us something about how the universe must be. Therefore speculating about why we are here isn't useless in the scientific sense, contrary to your claim.

Sep 29, 2019
"why are we here" presented in the form of "why is the universe such that we are here"
Aren't they two totally different questions? It seems to me that if you drop and egg - and then ask 'why did the egg break?' - that is a question of science. But if you ask 'why did someone put the egg here on the Earth?' - which seems to me more in line with your 'why are we here?' - question - that is a question of philosophy. I agree with Otto - that is an unanswerable question.

I love it when Chopra et al find a new word like 'quantum' - and then think they are scientists.

Sep 29, 2019
The point of academic philosophy is to TEACH students about how to DO philosophy, about the history and the discoveries of pure reason, not to hammer definite answers into their heads
That's what they SAY they do, but they dont. They rehash all the different failed -isms and then preach a few of their favorite current -isms and -neoisms.
That's like taking a bunch of scientists before Einstein and pointing out that they were all misguided. Well duh
But that's what current philos do. They just add 'neo' to them and hope no one will notice.

Heres prof um-um David albert pretending he is teaching you how to think
https://youtu.be/9nbbEw6SctA
What would that prove?
It would prove that sciphilos are actively working with real scientists on real experiments. They're not. They have no imput whatsoever in what scientists do.

Sep 29, 2019
"Krauss' gripe with philosophy seems to be, as Massimo Pigliucci eloquently points out, that philosophy hasn't solved scientific problems. The same charge is levelled even more bluntly by none other than Stephen Hawking, who in 2010 declared philosophy was dead."

"[Krauss] insists that when it comes to his question of why there is something rather than nothing, the claims made by philosophers are "essentially sterile, backward, useless and annoying". The empirical exploration of reality, he tells us, changes "our understanding of which questions are important and fruitful and which are not"."

"Krauss called Albert a "moronic philosopher" and told the Atlantic's Ross Andersen that philosophers are threatened by science because "science progresses and philosophy doesn't"."

-Eikka thinks philosophy and are the same thing because that's what philos tell him. Real scientists like krauss and Dawkins and feinman understand the distinction.

Sep 29, 2019
Quoting from a current philo
"I don't want to overplay the gulf between scientists and philosophers, or between disciplines like theoretical physics and metaphysics..."

-Metaphysics, the refuge of the mystic, the priest, and the philo. There is nothing in this world that is NOT physical. There IS no metaphysics.

"Transcendentalism emerged from "English and German Romanticism, the Biblical criticism of Johann Gottfried Herder and Friedrich Schleiermacher, the skepticism of David Hume",[1] and the transcendental philosophy of Immanuel Kant and German Idealism... A core belief of transcendentalism is in the inherent goodness of people and nature... Transcendentalism emphasizes subjective INTUITION over objective empiricism."

-This is the rot they are continuing to teach, no matter what they tell you. There HAS to be something that survives death, we're too intelligent and beautiful and unique to just evaporate.

Science can explain this neuroticism, philos cannot.

Sep 29, 2019
Errata from above:
"Eikka thinks philosophy and SCIENCE are the same thing because that's what philos tell him. Real scientists like krauss and Dawkins and feinman understand the distinction."
"why are we here" presented in the form of "why is the universe such that we are here"

Aren't they two totally different questions?
Yeah. One is rubbish and the other isn't. One can be answered while the other can not. The former was invented by priests to justify their human sacrifices and exclusive access to vestal virgins. Philos were only too happy to assume the mantle.

Sep 29, 2019
Nietzsche on human sacrifice
"That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one's cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of "pleasure." The human being who has become free -- and how much more the spirit who has become free -- spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior."
https://www.goodr...-a-thing

-The german philos were preparing euros to fight unprecedented wars.
"In 1883 Nietzsche coined the phrase "Wille zur Macht" in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. ... This suggests that the will to power is stronger than the will to survive. Schopenhauer's "Will to life" thus became a subsidiary to the will to power, which is the stronger will."

-A philos job is to influence behavior, not explain it.

Sep 29, 2019
Heres an interesting random article on current philosophy that illustrates my point, on ethics, by m pigliucci. Starts with many refs to classic philos, then current philos, and back... always maintaining the assumption of the metaphysical.

"The Stoics developed the idea of cosmopolitanism... As Epictetus [put it]: 'Do as Socrates did, never replying to the question of where he was from with: "I am Athenian," or "I am from Corinth," but always: "I am a citizen of the world."' This strikes me as something we ought to remember, internalise, and practise – especially in these times of fear-mongering, xenophobia, Brexit, Trumpism, and nationalistic tribalism."

-Tribalism is the source of morality. Internal amity/external enmity. FERGUSON. They even use the word. But they cannot acknowledge the biological basis of tribalism because it would be yet one more major category they would have to surrender to science.

The more science reveals, the more their obsolete discipline suffers.

Sep 29, 2019
And note the obligatory political smearing?

'Citizen of the world' is the idea of the universal tribe. The perception is wholly artificial, extremely difficult to maintain for very long, and thus extremely rare. Reagan referred to it in his speech about a universal threat from space as a way of uniting the world.

Tribalism needs enemies to exist. It is a response to external threat to begin with. Philos can never address it because doing so would weaken their own tribe.

Sep 30, 2019
Otto, you seem to have a very limited view of what is philosophy and how it can be useful. Usually, people of science don't mock philosophy because it's kinda the cornerstone of science. Reminds me of Benni and others here who say physics is a yay but mathematics big nay. If you had taken some lessons of history of science, you probably would not do that.

I'd like to remind you that there are some important things philosophers have also "invented" or tried to find a solution to. Let's say how to run economics and how to run a government as examples. No scientist can give you better answers than a philosopher, yet they are very important questions with huge implications to normal life.

Sep 30, 2019
Otto, you seem to have a very limited view of what is philosophy and how it can be useful. Usually, people of science don't mock philosophy because it's kinda the cornerstone of science
That's a lie they spread and you fall for. Philo is the cornerstone of squandered academic funding. I've listed just a few of the many scientists who have expressed this sentiment. They dont use it, they dont teach it, they dont ref it in their products except as a bit of fluff.

"Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," [Hawking] said. "Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics." Prof Hawking went on to claim that "Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

Sep 30, 2019
That's a lie they spread and you fall for. Philo is the cornerstone of squandered academic funding. I've listed just a few of the many scientists who have expressed this sentiment. They dont use it, they dont teach it, they dont ref it in their products except as a bit of fluff.

Who is this they spreading the lie? The universities which hire the most scientist or the scientist themselves teaching this stuff?

Hawking is known for hard statements but here's one from Einstein: "independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

Let me clarify this for you a bit. It is the philosophical way of thinking and reasoning which is important, not that philosophy is in practice any way scientific or not.

Sep 30, 2019
Do a search. These depts are closing all over because they simply cant justify their existence. They're worthless.

"Philosophers spend a lot of time writing things and trying to get them published in journals nobody reads — not even other philosophers — because in order to get a job, you need to have these papers and journals on your C.V... As an end-result, academic papers usually end up popularity contests, a game of who's-who where the goal is to develop incestuous citation networks so that your impact factor will look better for hiring and/or tenure committees."

-Read the article. As a philo she still tries to support the 'discipline' (it's important to teach students how to think) but the bulk of her argument is that it only teaches students how to ignore their confusion and accept that eventually, if they learn as much as the philo priests have, it will start to make sense.

In the meantime have faith.

Sep 30, 2019
Who is this they spreading the lie? The universities which hire the most scientist or the scientist themselves teaching this stuff?
I said philos depend on the lie that they have something worthwhile to offer. Scientists ignore them.
https://youtu.be/X8aWBcPVPMo

Einstein liked to evoke the wonder and mystery etc PR stuff to grab the peoples attention. He felt a certain obligation to his religious and academic institutions. But he was neither a philo nor a religionist.
It is the philosophical way of thinking and reasoning which is important
And specifically, which -ism are you talking about that is important?

"Have you ever hung out with someone who disagrees with everything you say? Philosophy conferences are pretty much like that. All the time. It's a never-ending parade of people attempting to one-up each other in verbal combat..."

-ie, shitfest. Roomfull of posers in a perpetual slapfight.

Sep 30, 2019
Even philos will tell you its rubbish

"[Others] note that my "avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters" often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors." Dan Dennett

"WORSE THAN USELESS."

Philos use undefinable words to construct inapplicable theories that none of them can agree on. Ever. Thats the POINT. And like I say whenever they get stuck they just resurrect an old -ism, slap neo- on it, and sprinkle on their favorite trendy new words and catchphrases and celebrity refs.

STEM teaches students how to think. Philosophy teaches students how to pretend to think convincingly. I suppose this is worth something.

Sep 30, 2019
I think the problem is in your attitude "us vs them". I don't understand why are you so angry about philosophy. Have a philoshoper or one of their ideas done something bad for you or what is it? Why is it so terrible to say that philosophical thinking and argumentation is good? Just imagine what this forum would be like if the members would argue and think by philosofical means.

You're dissmissing Einstein comment about the good of philosophy because he's not a philosopher? That's some nice logic. I'm not a philosopher, I'm a scientist but still I like philosophy. They don't cancel each other out nor they answer the same questions. I don't care if philosophy does no good. All science do no good.

I don't mean any -isms when talking about philosophical thinking. I'm talking about thinking rationally, going through different options and viewpoints, being critical etc. Wikipedia has a good article about it: https://en.wikipe...thinking


Sep 30, 2019
I think the problem is in your attitude "us vs them". I don't understand why are you so angry about philosophy
-Thats because you havent read the thread.
but still I like philosophy
-Well isnt that special. You like god too dont you?
I'm talking about thinking rationally
-Well if you ask a random philo about adherents of an -ism that isnt his, he will tell you they dont know how to think rationally. And vice versa. But they will both insist that that other philo over there, hes REALLY irrational.

No, philos are only good at convincing fanboys like yourself that whatever they are doing, is rational thinking. Its not.

Read dennetts quote again. "WORSE THAN USELESS." He is talking about the entire DISCIPLINE. Except his own little -ism that is. And since dennett has done excellent work as an antireligionist, I think that when pressed he would admit that whatever his -ism is, it isnt very useful.

Sep 30, 2019
"In Consciousness Explained, [dennett] affirms "I am a sort of 'teleofunctionalist', of course, perhaps the original teleofunctionalist". He goes on to say, "I am ready to come out of the closet as some sort of verificationist"

-I think he may be admitting it in this quote by making fun of the whole mess.

"My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors."

-He is only echoing the majority of scientists re philosophy here. What makes you think anything useful can come from people who cannot consistently define the words they use???

It is EXACTLY like art. I happen to like nietszche a lot, not because of whatever he was trying to explain (he wasnt) but because he was such a clever wordsmith.

Its art. Like looking at a jackson pollack painting. Look at all the pretty spaghetti.

Sep 30, 2019
There was actually an -ism maybe a century ago (I cant locate it) that promised to replace esoteric philo words with everyday words that anybody could understand.

They eventually gave up. Of course they did.

Philosophy is really only one overarching -ism;

"Obscurantism is the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise and recondite manner, often designed to forestall further inquiry and understanding.[3] There are two historical and intellectual denotations of Obscurantism: (1) the deliberate restriction of knowledge—opposition to disseminating knowledge;[a] and, (2) deliberate obscurity—an abstruse style (as in literature and art [AND PHILOSOPHY]) characterized by deliberate vagueness."

-an -ism which happens to be very well-defined and understandable by most anybody.

Sep 30, 2019
mmm people like this article ?

google : > wasting research grant money scientist research falling buttered toast ?

As the side which has been buttered is naturally facing upwards, that's the side which ends up on the floor. To confirm the theory, food expert Professor Chris Smith and his team dropped 100 slices of toast from a table at Manchester MET University

The buttered toast phenomenon is an observation that buttered toast tends to land butter-side down after it falls. It is used an idiom representing pessimistic outlooks. Various people have attempted to determine whether there is an actual tendency for bread to fall in this fashion, with varying results.

Oct 01, 2019
Otto you carefully left all my questions answered. Why you hate philosophy so much or do you just hate all people who in your eyes have pointless jobs or hobbies? Only reason I could deduct from all your hate is pointlessness. I like to hear your definitions of pointless.

Philosophy isn't only -ism. It only shows your attitude towards it. Only -isms I have cared enough to read something from books are individualism and classical liberalism but I have read all kind light philosophical stuff out of interest. It must make me a terrible person to waste my time in such matters. It would be so much better writing angry messages here.

Have you ever even studied philosophy or read a philosophical book. To me your attitude seems biased like you actually have no idea what you are talking about. All "real" philosophers to whom I have talked to have been really intellectual. You could have a conversation about anything with them, not only about the areas of their interest. They can talk science.

Oct 01, 2019
Contrast my posts with yours and eikkas. I present lots of EVIDENCE and refs from reputable sources - scientists and even philos. You guys offer only opinions and ad hom. Of course - that's the kind of thinking and argument that empty disciplines like philosophy encourage. A disdain and disregard for evidence and good hard work, a love of fashion and pretense. You for instance dont even bother to read the whole thread before starting to guess and opine.

Philos are lazy, pompous, vacuous, and dangerous. This is the 'philosophy' they teach. They are anti science and anti knowledge. Who wouldnt hate that? Why lazy, pompous, vacuous fanboys, is who.
Have you ever even studied philosophy or read a philosophical book
Havent I given you several excerpts and refs to said books and papers? READ THE THREAD or stfu.
They can talk science
How would you know? Sounds to me like you were dazzled by the tone of their voice and the color of their eyes.

*sigh*

Oct 01, 2019
C'mon cotexx. Give it a try. There's lots of petulant, wounded philos whining their asses off about being ignored by scientists and the rest of the world.

Go into google
Type 'crying philos and the world that hates them'
Copy/paste some quotes.

Work isn't hard, trust me.

Oct 02, 2019
You haven't given me a single example of their dangers. I just have to take your word for it. Only source you have given me is youtube. Seems like I'm correct, you must have something personal against philosophy. Maybe your teacher didn't give you good grades even thought you worked hard.

You have presented zero evidence of philosophy's uselessness. You have only presented your hate and some opinions of big names. If opinions are evidence for you, no wonder you don't like philosophy because there opinions don't count as evidence.

Only actual bad thing I can find from your rant is that philosophers are lazy which is once again presented without evidence. But I can tell you that I'm lazy too. That's one of the reasons I like to be a scientist because there's a lot of lazy free time.

I admit that I'm semi-dazzled by their lovely voice and presentation but they are good talkers. They usually admire all sciences so you can basically talk anything with them.

Oct 02, 2019
I find it funny that you ask me how. I have taken few lessons, read a couple of books and talked to few whom call themselves philosophers. You seem to have done none of these yet you are bashing philosophy here the loudest. You are reading quotes from the internet and as some scientific people call philosophers lazy and bad you join their tribe in astonishment.


Oct 02, 2019
"Lawrence Krauss: Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then 'natural philosophy' became physics, and physics has only continued to make inroads. Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves [proving them WRONG], and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers."

Niel degrasse Tyson "Pretty much after quantum mechanics, remember the philosopher is the would be scientist but without a laboratory, right? And so what happens is, the 1920s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which falls so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair that the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientists was rendered essentially obsolete."

Oct 02, 2019
Feynman at an ethics conference: "They wrote their report in a pretentious academic style which frustrated Feynman, so he decided to translate it into plain English. The first opaque sentence reduced to "People read." He was wise to a ruse many scholars in the humanities use – cloaking ordinary ideas in ornate verbiage, as if their aim were more to appear erudite than to communicate useful information. Ordinary fools he could tolerate, but the "pompous fools" in the humanities, as he called them, were intolerable... Feynman said philosophers make "stupid remarks," he had keener insight than when he called philosophy "low-level baloney"

Oct 02, 2019
Krauss: "Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, "those that can't do, teach, and those that can't teach, teach gym." And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics what so ever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it's fairly technical. And so it's really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I'd say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened, and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn't."

Oct 02, 2019
Let me first say that throwing random quotes is not evidence or even sources. I just have to take your word that these guys actually said these things because I'm too lazy to fact sect.

It seems to me that your criticue is actually towards that philosophy tries too much to be a science? Is philosophy ok as long as it doesn't cross roads with natural sciences? I have never even considered that to be a real thing among philosophy. Yes, some philosophers must have thought about the birth of universe and such but that kind of philosophy isn't really my cake.

Too bad you can't tolarate people with different hobbies even if they do you no harm.

Oct 02, 2019
Let me first say that throwing random quotes is not evidence or even sources. I just have to take your word that these guys actually said these things because I'm too lazy to fact sect
-or bother to spellcheck. That's right - you are. You're so lazy you cant even copy/paste a quote into google to find the source. Instead you want to accuse me of lying and making them up. Why would I do that? I know that most all the people who might read what I write, aren't nearly as LAZY as you, and would quickly find out I was lying.

No wonder you like philosophy.

Look up schwach·sin·nig

Oct 02, 2019
I didn't accuse you of anything. I just said that those are not valid sources because you claimed they are. I do believe the persons said those things but I'm not sure of the context where they were said.

You're skilled at dodging every point I try to say back to you and focus only calling me names and mocking philosophy. It would be nice if you would address all the points I made and not only cherry pick the ones suiting your tale.

Oct 03, 2019
"The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a scholarly publishing sting perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor... "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",[3] was published in the Social Text spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct... Three weeks after its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax."

-Kind of like if one of the regulars here decided to troll poor otto with bad English and a fake sock. Sounds like a good hobby for a guy named cotexx. And I only want to make the world a better place you know?

Oct 03, 2019
Again, no valid sourcing or answering to my comments. Only blaming me of trolling and bad English...

I don't believe you want to make the world a better place. You're such a negative person.

Oct 03, 2019
Again, no valid sourcing or answering to my comments. Only blaming me of trolling and bad English...

I don't believe you want to make the world a better place. You're such a negative person.
I always try to be making good from bad trollscum no? Like opportunity for presentation of good argumentum against bad acadeemies.

Thanks for that littel trollscum. Soon to be talking again nestpas?

Oct 03, 2019
If you really want to talk, answer these points of mine and don't hide behind accusations of trolling or bad English or whatever.

This: "It seems to me that your critique is actually towards that philosophy tries too much to be a science? Is philosophy ok as long as it doesn't cross roads with natural sciences?"

This: "I find it funny that you ask me how. I have taken few lessons, read a couple of books and talked to few whom call themselves philosophers. You seem to have done none of these yet you are bashing philosophy here the loudest."

This: "Why you hate philosophy so much or do you just hate all people who in your eyes have pointless jobs or hobbies? Only reason I could deduct from all your hate is pointlessness. I like to hear your definitions of pointless."

This: "Too bad you can't tolerate people with different hobbies even if they do you no harm."

It would show that you have even some appreciation towards me if you even would answer my whole comments.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more