Debate:The modern sciences and philosophy

“ This was a fun and exciting discussion group. Sharp minds, polite and respectful people, and a good location to meet. I would do this again, the next time I am in town ”

“ Enjoyed the meeting. It worked because it was small and intimate. ”

“ An interesting debate. Most people were respectful to one another. One gentleman had quite an aggressive style which was a bit offputting however. ”

“ The debate digressed a lot from the main questions for enquiry and often went off-topic, such as discusing 9/11 conspiracies. I think the major problem is the lack of a facilitator, of a neutral who's role is to ensure everyone participates, that the discussion stays on track, that people's ideas are being valued and people listen to each other. I don't think the discussion achieved a lot and did not give me a sense of philosophical engagement. I did not engage in higher order thinking, which is what I expect in philosophy. The system in place was that people had to jump in discussion interrupting others, thus creating an environment of who's got the loudest voice or who's got the fastest not the most thoughtful response. i apologise for being overly critical, yet i feel this is what philosophy is about. it's about stepping back and being honest and critical. i don't want to destroy but to give ideas for reconstruction, i feel this group needs some rethinking of how it's arranged ”