Nick, Owen, Did you guys get my post about what philosophers do? If not, here it is again.
*-- Russ * * * Although some philosophers would disagree with the detailed implications of the following characterization, in a broad sense philosophers spend their time analyzing and clarifying ideas. This is often referred to as conceptual analysis, and it is understood as what one can do "from an armchair," i.e., by thinking about something. If you look at what academic philosophers do these days it seems (to me) that an awful lot of it involves nit picking. One paper would be a claim about some concept X, and a responding paper argues that the author of the first didn't consider this aspect of what we normally think of when we talk about X. The points may be valid, but the important larger issues often (in my view) get lost. This happens (it seems to me) because like all academics, philosophers are under pressure to publish. Hence many papers are published more because the author needs to add to his CV than because the paper is a significant advance in its area. (But that's true of much academic writing.) One way to get a sense of what philosophers do is to look at what they write, and a good place to get an overview of that is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <http://plato.stanford.edu/> (SEP), a resource that as I understand it, is respected by philosophizers -- and contributed to by many of the best known. Here's a link to the Table of Contents <http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html>. The articles in it are intentionally written as review articles rather than as articles that propound a specific position--although many seem to include a good deal of the author's perspective. The following articles may be of interest to this list: species <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/> (what do we mean by the term and are there really any such things?),scientific realism <http://scientific%20realism/> (a description of how most scientists think about what they do), emergent properties<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/>(about, of course, emergence and what that term has been used to mean), and causal processes <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-process/> (by an Australian philosopher who I think gets it right but who seems to have been dismissed by many academic philosophers). Another place to look for information about what philosophers do is to do a Google search for "How to write a philosphy paper<http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#sclient=psy&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&qscrl=1&source=hp&q=%22how+to+write+a+philosophy+paper%22&pbx=1&oq=%22how+to+write+a+philosophy+paper%22&aq=f&aqi=g-c1g4&aql=f&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=174002l175550l4l2l2l0l0l0l0l238l469l2-2l2&qscrl=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c306e119a7d85f91&ion=1&biw=1171&bih=769>." This will yield quite a few references written by academic philosophers for their students telling them how to write papers. For example, here's one from the Dartmouth writing program about "Writing the philosophy paper<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/humanities/philosophy.shtml> ." Having written the preceding, I'm wondering whether it scratches the itch that prompted the question in the first place. It talks about what philosophers actually do, but it probably provides less ammunition to praise or criticize it. *-- Russ * * * P.S. I write this as a computer scientist who has read quite a bit of philosophy in the past few years. But I can't claim to speak for philosophers. To find out what an academic philosopher would say that philosophers do one should really ask one. On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
============================================================ 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
