On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Owen, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Please. I am confused. What is it that you think philosophers do? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Nick
>
Well, to be frank, I don't think I can answer beyond they philosophize .. or
do philosophy. And that it is broad enough to have sub-disciplines like
Philosophy of Science, but in a sense, it is not a discipline at all!
The reason I say this is that philosophers appear to avoid building on each
other's past work .. they all start over so to speak. Thus the comment of
toes vs shoulders and my questioning its being a discipline. This does make
a bit of sense .. the world is changing all the time so that it should come
as no surprise that philosophy must change. And they have done a good job
of categorizing areas of thinking and being. That oughta be worth at least
a C.
So I find peace with philosophy by thinking about it as "sorting things
out". Hence my liking Michael Sandel .. I like his pragmatic approach, and
his ability to show the value of philosophy and its broader concepts. And I
like how it drives me to quiet meditation on my own life and purpose.
I also like how Noether, Weierstrass, Russell and many others used
philosophic pondering to make gigantic steps forward in math and physics.
But from any direct experience, people appear to believe To Philosophize ==
To Argue Incessantly.
Forgive me,
-- Owen
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On
> Behalf Of *Owen Densmore
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:40 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Personally, I think philosophy is on par with science. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Good lord, how? Is it as empirical? Does it create as provably valid
> models? Or is it simply as worthy an area of study as science? ****
>
> ** **
>
> I think the Par you are considering would not include your going to a
> philosopher for medical treatment, right?****
>
> ****
>
> But they are in
> two different categories. Science is limited to negation, the
> demonstration that some sentence (or class of sentences) does not hold
> (here, now, anywhere, anywhen). ****
>
> ** **
>
> Er, how does Newton deal with negation? Isn't a clear set of equations
> saying what *will* happen? I mean of course one can say, It Is Not The Case
> That F=ma Is Not True, but really, just how can we think of science limited
> to negation?****
>
> ** **
>
> Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for all the rich topics of
> investigation we pursue, philosophy included. However, I don't see that
> they are on par in any way other than you can study it.****
>
> ** **
>
> -- Owen
>
============================================================
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
