>I do suspect that the practice and vocation of philosophy is being altered
in the face of things like the development of Category Theory and now LLMs
One of Joe Ramsey's colleagues, Steve Awodey, is working on a reformulation
of the foundations of mathematics based on category theory.
---
I like the term "epistemic trespass" and generally agree with the idea
glen promotes in that regard.
My direct experience with *many* experimentalists trained and
self-selected as physicists or chemists or materials scientists was that
many of them were excellent engineers, computer systems
This merely seems like triggered gatekeeping to me. Yeah, sure, working
philosophers have skills and behaviors working [insert your favorite other clique]
don't have. But, if it's not already obvious, especially to anyone who's had ANY
contact with organizations like the SFI, epistemic
That is indeed a nifty quote, frank. Thanks for posting it.
I spaced out and came late to Thuram. Stephen and had a really
enlightening (for me) conversation..
Well into my second reading of MCarthy's Stella Maris.
N
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 11:33 AM Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Joe Ramsey, who
Joe Ramsey, who took over my job.in the Philosophy Department at Carnegie
Mellon, posted the following on Facebook:
I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson a lot, but I saw him give a spirited defense of
science in which he oddly gave no credit to philosophers at all. His straw
man philosopher is a dedicated
Roger, you are quite correct - I should have been more precise: Pierce
as philosopher anticipating contemporary philosophers of science,
described as Bayseianists in the article, because their philosophical
ideas are "justified" by Bayes' mathematics.
davew
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 07/11/2011 05:58 PM:
But before I say why -- again -- could you tell me how (if?) you think
mathematics is different from science.
Don't bother saying it again. I read, understood, and agree with what
you've posted. Similarly, I've already posted what I think
Not surprisingly, I have an opinion about this too! ;-) I tend to think
that all progress, everywhere, in all cases, consists of tiny
transitions from prior state. Even the seemingly important or
paradigmatic shifts like Newton's or the fall of the Berlin Wall are
really the accumulation of
...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 07/11/2011 05:58 PM:
But before I say why -- again -- could
Nick sez:
Glen,
** Sorry if I have been obtuse. It's partly because I can be obtuse and
partly because my means of communication here at the farm are so primitive
that errors are easy to make and easy to get out of control.
**
** I had just about decided that I shouldn't
I agree totally. Everything is incremental, including biological
evolution, invention, etc.
You may be familiar with Rev. Paley's watchmaker argument in the early
1800s, that if you find a gold watch it is dishonest to pretend it
didn't have a watchmaker, and belongs to no one. Paley argued that
I haven't followed the previous discussions regarding philosophy vs. science
but I think the philosophy of science is vitally important, especially as it
pertains to what is knowledge? and what is science? and especially when
things that are science are under attack.
I realised this last year
Count yourself as blessed, it's a great defensive mechanism. It works
pretty well against just about any flavor of religious proselytizing too.
--Doug
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Richard Harris richard.w.har...@mac.comwrote:
I just wish my eyes didn't glaze over and my mind go numb
Richard Harris wrote at 07/12/2011 02:07 PM:
I just wish my eyes didn't glaze over and my mind go numb whenever
I'm confronted with anything that smacks of philosophy.
That phrase is interesting: smacks of philosophy. My point with the
relativity principle and electrodynamics article was, in
] On Behalf
Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
Nick sez:
Glen,
Sorry if I have been obtuse. It's partly because I can be obtuse and partly
because my means of communication here
Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
Nick sez:
Glen,
Sorry if I have been obtuse. It's partly because I can be obtuse and partly
because my means of communication here at the farm
I'm curious to know what the philosophy is very different from science
camp thinks of this paper:
http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/MG-LESz-rp_preprint-v5.pdf
It's not a rhetorical question. I don't understand that paper or the
physics or math being discussed ... at least not to my
Without reading the paper, I can offer one way in which academic
physics is exactly like the description of academic philosophy offered
in earlier postings, namely that much research and scholarship are
tweaks on prior work.
Some years ago at a workshop we gave for physics faculty about our
intro
Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
I'm curious to know what the philosophy is very different
Dang! I was going to go off-list but you dragged me back in...
I know next to nothing about your fields of expertise, but Wikipedia agrees
with you, so you must be right. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophers#20th_century_philosophy:
In the latter half of the twentieth century, analytic
Philosophy vs Philosopher
Thanks to Robert for weighing in on the topic so eloquently after having
offered us please god no! earlier on. It validates that this is a
worthy thread of discussion, even for those who might prefer more
concrete topics.
I personally never thought this thread
Here's an interesting book review in today's issue of Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5887/344
*Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings*
Piecewise Approximations to Reality
*by William C. Wimsatt*
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007. 468 pp. $49.95, £32.95,
22 matches
Mail list logo
