Steve,
Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question? Nick From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:39 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science 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
