Jose “ I will point out that Reason is the <Formal object (quo)> of Philosophy
I will also point out that Logic is a branch of Philosophy”

And I say “So What “

Previous comments refer to where YOU were confusing “science” with “subjective opinion” and were clearly seen to be lacking in “reasoned logic”.

Logic is not “science” nor within the ambit of science. Logic might be the interpretation of some fact but it can equally be influenced by subjective assessment and values.

Example –
Good old dull “accounting provisions and principles for depreciation” will result in an absolute value of depreciation being expensed within a given trading period.
The basis of that provision is entirely logical. HOWEVER, the logic of determination is “subjective” and dependent upon how the accountants and other operating officers view the foreseeable useful life of the assets being depreciated. Two officers might both have completely “logical and reasoned” perceptions of the useful asset life and might both have completely different views on how much should be depreciated in any given trading period.

Whilst dealing with "logical processes" it is entirely possible, as I have illustrated, for two differing logical opinions, of equal merit, to result in entirely different outcomes. That is because whilst they might be "logical" they are not “science”.

As for “examples” – you have my response –

You are most welcome to present as many different targets for me as you wish –
But I can assure you, they will all end up in the same sorry state of rejection.

I remember stating the scientific fact that an embryo is an <individual human organism>.
This is not confusing science with subjective opinion.
I remember saying that Philosophy is a science.
Philosophy is a science.
Philosophy is more sublime than other sciences, as we can see when considering the 2 principal meanings of the term ‘science’.

1) In so far as science is a “certain knowledge through causes”, philosophy is a science. Besides, since it studies the deepest causes of reality, it is the first and most eminent of the sciences; the other sciences only deal with the more immediate or proximate causes of reality.
2) In so far as science is knowledge attained by way of demonstration, starting from some principles, philosophy is truly a science since it attains knowledge in this manner. Philosophy also studies the first or most basic principles of all knowledge, which other sciences do not do.

Diversity of opinions is due to the shortcomings of those who do not study issues with the required rigor or precision, and who try to explain reality by reducing it to some of its partial aspects.

Art:
The rationality of actions through which some objects are produced.

The ‘objects’ produced, as fitting your example, is the “absolute value of depreciation being expensed within a given trading period”. The ‘rationality of actions through which’ “the accountants and other operating officers” produce the result is their technique, which may differ from man to man, although some have more experience and are more successful than others. Also, using the example you provided, this financial game is a bit of a “gamble” as I’m sure you have learned in your time (some aspects of the finance game are out of the officers’ control and some cannot be pre-determined, only guessed at through professional ‘wisdom’ coming from experience and knowledge).

In my next post I will put forward the two examples I requested from you. I will put this off further only if you waste time by provoking argument about philosophy.

Your earlier diatribe about philosophy being a science was destroyed by myself and other posters.

Now again “Philosophy is a science.”
Simply because you say it, just like demanding the right to interfere in someone else’s life decisions, does not make it right or fact.

To repeat here, philosophy IS NOT A SCIENCE – that is why Universities teach “philosophy” as part of “humanities” and philosophy degrees, along with other “humanities” degrees, like Law and Accounting are “Arts” degrees, not science degrees.

As for “some aspects of the finance game are out of the officers’ control and some cannot be pre-determined, only guessed at through professional ‘wisdom’ coming from experience and knowledge).”

I am pleased you got the drift of the accounting example, I have been a qualified accountant for 30 years and worked at CFO level before diverting into the arena of financial and systems consultancy.

The “wisdom” derived from experience and knowledge describes perfectly “wisdom” supported by “subjective judgement” and not scientific fact.

The example was to illustrate the philosophical and subjective nature of what many would erroneously assume to be a mechanical/predictable/scientific calculation and thus supports the fact that “philosophy” is a subjective and non-scientific pursuit.

As for “In my next post I will put forward the two examples I requested from you. I will put this off further only if you waste time by provoking argument about philosophy.”

I am not sure if that is a threat or invitation – either way the bit about

“put this off further only if you waste time by provoking argument about philosophy.” sounds almost threatening

So you can present now or put off for all time, for all I care.
You are free to post as you see fit and I will do the same.
However, I will not be intimidated or subjegated by simpleton threats of any sort.

Your example in no way supports the claim that philosophy is un-scientific.
We agree that there are factors (in the finance game) which cannot be known with certainty.
You believe philosophy is the same; where knowledge (with ceratainty) is made impossible by the nature of philosophy.
This is not so.
Philosophy, as a science, reaches certain knowledge through causes.
Philosophy, like science, reaches knowledge by way of demonstration, starting from principles.

Stay tuned for my next post where I will put forward the two examples.

Jose

Give up on the philosophy is a science. Col R and I took you to task on this ages ago - and then you seemed to believe us.

Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world. It has nothing to do with pure sciences. The pure sciences are objective. Philosophical stances are subjective. People who use philosophical theories and/or assumptions rely on pure sciences to support arguments.

You seem to rely on pure sciences to validate your abortion arguments, but then return to spurious phisophical ideas to skew scientific facts.

Cheers
Kay

We are talking about two different things. You are using a colloquiallism; "This is my philosophy on the world", says Bob. Bob's 'philosophy' (world view) will be to some degree in conformity with the truth. This truth can be studied through philosophy (which I have been refering to, although you've been talking about something else).

Try this:
Taking a philosophical stance, let us examine the human person.
We must be objective, otherwise the procedure is flawed by 'reductionism', which is poison to philosophical investigation (something that you both think is inherent in the nature of philosophy).
The individual can perform abstractions. (eg: 2+2=4). This is an operation of the Intellect.
The individual can actively direct his Intellect. (eg: to heed or diregard spontaneous knowledge- to heed or disregard another poster's posts for example). This is an operation of the Will.

By way of demonstration, starting from some principles (ie: scientifically), we reach the certain knowledge of the soul as a constituent of human nature (the body being the other constituent).

Now tell me that the metaphysical investigation I just related is unscientific.

Stay tuned