Relying to Steve & Roger: No, for once I was not being argumentative, it was the "of science" part I was questioning. As compared, say, to a philosopher of religion, or morality, or human psychology. Continuing to use our favorite reference source, Wikipedia gives this definition for "Philosopher" (which, as it turns out, does not really differ substantively from mine):
A *philosopher* is a person <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person> with an extensive knowledge <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge> of philosophy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy> who uses this knowledge in their work, typically to solve philosophical problems<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy>. Philosophy is concerned with studying the subject matter of fields such as aesthetics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics>, ethics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics> , epistemology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology>, logic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic> , metaphysics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics>, as well as social philosophy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social> and political philosophy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy> . My definition of *philosopher*, btw, is "One who thinks deeply about important stuff." Back to the original question, what benefits does a Philosopher *of Science* provide. Does he aid people like, say, George Smoot (Noble Prize in Physics, 2006) do cosmology better? Or, does he help a computer scientist develop better code or systems designs? --Doug On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of > organization, > >> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to > different disciplines of study > >> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science. > > 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. > > > The author of the book is a faculty member at Stanford University who > identifies as a philosopher of science. She wrote a book. She presumably > teaches classes, writes scholarly articles, and reviews the writings of > other scholars. > > She identifies the different ways of studying human behavior as equally > "scientific", while the popular science literature, the grant competition > process, and the disciplines themselves tend to treat the alternatives as > mutually exclusive possible truths, in a conflict from which one shall > emerge triumphant. > > So which question is the serious one? Taken together, you are expressing > skepticism of philosophy by asking a question about values. That is as > close to the origins of western philosophy as you can get without directly > quoting Socrates. > > -- rec -- > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- *Doug Roberts [email protected]* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*<http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> * <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
============================================================ 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
