I've made him gun-shy, Nick. --Doug
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- *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
