Is he right, /his/?
>Philosophy
We tried that, didn't work.
That is an unbelievably ignorant statement lol
But science is just natural philosophy.
>>528374
Well science can't really impose on philosophy since science is a derivative of philosophy. You can't even do science without philosophy. Even very hard sciences like physics have limits on what you can do with empiricism and eventually you need to use some abstract thinking in order to make the whole model make sense. As a very basic example if you want to say that the universe is ordered this requires some philosophy to rationalize it and define exactly what the nature of order is. If you don't take this idea that the universe is ordered than the scientific method is meaningless. Without the theory of order you couldn't assume that because soemthing worked before it would work again.
>>528374
I'm going to be frank, if anyone in this thread hasn't read this fucking book
>pic related
then you really are going to be limited in this discussion.
I see this book as a must read.
>>528381
Confirmed for not even knowing what the fuck science is lmao
>>528374
Before anyone says anything, i would encourage the thorough reading of Langdon Winner's "The Whale and the Reactor"
and he is right.
I'm sure there is a pdf of it online.
>>528452
who the fuck are you lol
>>528393
This
>>528374
Chesterton didn't live to see phones turn into portable porn dispensers. His hypothesis is inherently wrong because he doesn't acknowledge how transformative technology and history can be.
>>528941
I hope this is satire
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
>>528374
I would say that, by one definition of science, it cannot impose impose a philosophy but can be used to do so.
By another definition of "science", it IS a philosophy.
By another definition of "science", it could impose a philosophy. In this case "science" would refer to a "scientistic" group of people performing "science", i.e. a plurality of scientists sharing what might be called a "scientistic" ideology that one might call a "philosophy".
Now should those people not proselytize? Well I can see why Chesterton would try and fail to stop them.
Now should a phone not tell us what to say? Well I agree at least partially with McLuhan that the phone is saying something itself, and cannot fail to influence what we say.
Just try to compare Lincoln's letters with Clinton's emails.
>>528983
>implying that sexual morality has never changed
Well, a telephone drastically limits communication by making it audio only and, at that time, forcing you to stay still.
>>528983
What did he mean by this?
>>529024
>>528983
>damn nature! we must fight an endless war against are natural urges!
>>528374
How can naturalistic observation NOT inform our philosophy? How can philosophy have any truth or use if it does not reflect the physical world?
>>528983
Pretty much. Great wealth and power allows a society's elites to enjoy libertinism to a far greater than the masses can.
Most of the US'/Britain's moral crusaders and reformers were from the middle class and directed towards the upper class
>>529148
>natural urges
>>528374
It's ignorant but it needs context. One of the core arguments used by Christian apologists is that as a metaphysical God can't be discovered or proven as a physical entity, similar to the way that a programmer cannot literally be found within a video game.
