Doug -
This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but
humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they
provide? Serious question.
Straight out of Wikipedia (for convenience, not because it is
necessarily an infallible authority):
The *philosophy of science* is concerned with all the assumptions,
foundations, methods
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>, implications of
science <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science>, and with the use and
merit of science. This discipline sometimes overlaps metaphysics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics>, ontology
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology> and epistemology
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology>, viz., when it explores
whether scientific results comprise a study of truth
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth>.
I know you call this a serious question, but I think it might be
argumentative, restating your declaration/assumption that philosophy has
no value, at least not in the context of science? I think you are using
a fallacious definition of the term philosophy perhaps.
Also out of Wikipedia (same caveats):
*Philosophy* is the study of general and fundamental problems, such
as those connected with reality
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality>, existence
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology>, knowledge
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology>, values
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology>, reason
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic>, mind
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind>, and language
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language>.^[1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#cite_note-philosophy-1>
^[2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#cite_note-philosophical-2>
Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such
problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its
reliance on rational argument
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic>.^[3]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#cite_note-justification-3>
In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the
most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".
I know you well enough to believe that if you accept these definitions
(of philosophy and philosophy of science) that you would acknowledge the
value of both. Can you confirm or deny that apprehension? I suspect
your suspicion of the terms/fields and their utility is based on a
different understanding of the term(s). I suspect you use the term
"philosophy" roughly in the same way I use the term "wanking".
I will acknowledge that many with limited or no formal training in
science will resort to all sorts of specious rhetoric or sophistry to
make claims about reality. However, I would claim that a similar number
of us (you in this case?) use the term "Philosophy" roughly to describe
the very same *small subset* of discourse/thinking.
Philosophy in general and philosophy of science in particular frame the
relevance of science and it's limits. Many of the tools of science
(mathematics, logic, formal reasoning) are not *part of Science*.
Perhaps you use the term "philosophy" to mean all parts of philosophy
that are NOT directly relevant to science (e.g. theology for sure,
epistomology maybe, aesthetics probably, non-physical cosmology, ...
etc.) perhaps you use "science" to describe science itself plus all of
the parts of philosophy of direct relevance (physical cosmology, logic,
mathematics, and possibly parts of language, epistimology, ontology and
metaphysics). This use of "science" would then of course be tautological.
I'm sure there are others here more well educated in Philosophy than I.
I'm sure I have made at least a few mis-statements or mis-implications
in this shoot-from-the hip response.
I also think there are bigger implications to the discussion about
Science vs Philosophy. Tory has brought up some of the issues of
"Philosophy as studied/presented by the white male patriarchy" which
opens own issues and I suspect some of our other more
non-Western-leaning members (Dave Wade, Carl Tollander, Rich Murray,
Sarbajit Roy, ???) may have *yet another* perspective to add.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
