Glen, ===>wide grin of recognition and fellow feeling<===
That is why I have found this discussion so ..... preposterous. Not a one of the people who has taken the "Please God no" position has the faintest ressemblence to a mindless tradesman, parameterizer, crank turner, etc. All are philosophers in the sense that they have, at one time or another, questioned the logic or relevance-to-goals of some project that others are hell-bent to pursue. They are bomb-throwers throwing bombs at bombthrowing. But let's not go back there! The discussion is now going gangbusters and I am learning stuff at fabulous side. Many have sent me material on the side which I am seeking permision to post and what with trips to Boston, etc., I am falling behind. But I will catch up as soon as i can. thanks everybody, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 7/15/2009 11:19:16 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > > Thus spake Owen Densmore circa 09-07-15 09:20 AM: > > As the OP, I'd like to remind ourselves that the original question was: > > Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work > > in the same way mathematics does? > > > > Our wanderings are important, but can we also attempt to answer The > > Question? > > [grin] I can't resist reminding you that I have answered the question: > because philosophy is pre-math, or perhaps extra-math. (I can't use > "meta-math", though I could use "meta-meta-math". ;-) Philosophy > doesn't build on philosophy. It builds new math based on > interpretations of old math. (More accurately, it builds new constructs > that may or may not be further developed into math... or science, or > psychology, or whatever domain in which the philosopher works.) > Similarly, new philosophy of science does not build on old philosophy of > science. It builds new science based on interpretations of old science. > It builds new <whatever> based on interpretations of old <whatever>. > Note that where philosophy fails to constructively build new <whatever>, > that failure doesn't diminish the necessity of the philosophy. > > Mathematicians who do not engage in philosophy (call them what you want) > are not pushing the boundaries of math. They may be inventing new > theorems and proving them true within the pre-existing, settled body of > accepted math. But without philosophy, they are not making math more > expressive or powerful. Lucky for most math PhDs, I'm not and never > will be on any thesis committees, because I would _require_ a doctor of > philosophy to ... well, do philosophy. ;-) No philosophy, no PhD. > > So, regarding the recent "Please God, No" issue. I regard anyone who is > NOT a philosopher, at least to some extent, to be a mere tradesman or > worse, an assembly line worker. These people are necessary and > valuable; but they don't really construct anything. They merely assist > their bosses (the philosophers of X) in the attempt to construct some X. > > And finally that leads us to my practicable point-of-view, which is that > if the sfComplex and/or FRIAM want to construct things, rather than > merely assisting in someone else's attempts to construct things, they/we > _must_ be philosophers and must "do philosophy", albeit within very > pragmatic constraints. > > To be clear, an absence of philosophy guarantees a failed > sfComplex/FRIAM. But, of course, the presence of philosophy does not > guarantee the success of sfComplex/FRIAM. And, further, a preponderance > of failed philosophy will put any potential success at risk. > > So the practical, constructive thing to do, as organizers of > FRIAM/sfComplex, is to define/test methods for engaging in constructive > philosophy. For example, a mandate might be that all these discussions > must result in an artifact, be it a wiki page, a simulation, or just an > influence graph showing, say, how Zeno contributed to the Riemann Zeta > function. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
