Doesn't the phrasing of these question indicate a misunderstanding of what philosophy brings to the table in the context of science?
If we use the term "philosophers" very loosely, surely many individuals who would call themselves "philosophers" have contributed insights into biology, and every other field... but that probably isn't the question. The question is probably something like: Why should I give a shit what philosophers say about MY science, the one I am busy practicing? If THAT is the question, then the answer is that it depends on what the philosophers are doing. On the one hand, if the philosophers claim to be answering scientific (i.e., empirical) questions, from their arm chairs, then it might be fine to ignore them. Though surely they will sometimes come up with interesting ideas that turn out to be right, they might not do so with unusual consistency. On the other hand, if the philosophers are familiar with large swaths of your field, and are pointing out inconsistencies, or pulling together conclusions, at a larger-scale than is likely to be possible for researchers stuck in small silos, then they might well contribute to very important advances. So, do you trust that philosophers can "solve" scientific problems... probably not. Do you trust that some number of philosophers in a field will help you to identify and clarify issues, and thereby improve the pace of progress... probably yes, if you can get philosophers who understand that to be their role. ----------- Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. Lab Manager Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20016 phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190 email: [email protected] On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky <[email protected]> wrote: > To Roger and Nick, > > > > That idea has been on the backburner of Biology for 5 decades or more. > > The greatest problem in the 70’s and later was Statistics which tended to > dismiss anything outside of a curve. > > > > It started after the second war when an unusual coincidence of scientific > minds started talking. > > Soviets and Americans when strange Tick-Borne plagues started emerging in > the middle east, Russia, Crimea > > and parts of Africa. > > > > I was just a kid doing my first MSc when I met > > Harry Hoogstraal at an Acarology Workshop at OSU. What did I know, > nothing. What the hell. He was > > Jimmy Carter’s science advisor, I was told later . And the de facto head > of the NAMRU facility outside Cairo. > > > > Anyway he was checking on students in the lab one night I was the only > nightowl and we chatted over microscopes. > > > > He asked me what I thought happened to all the parasites of the Woolly > Rhino when it died out, it was a big source of blood in an Arctic > Landscape? ( I was working on Moose Ticks at the time) > > What he was after was an answer to the stream of life question, did they > die or simply find new real estate? > > > > I returned to Canada and only brought it up a few times usually when very > drunk, spoiling for a fight or a real argument. > > Bits and pieces accumulated over time spared from the statisticians. Then > totally ignored during all the subsequent eras of utter confusion and money > grubbing. > > > > Mostly entomologists were the first to notice something did not fit the > consensus narrative. Then microbiologists who were asked to help out and > they saw the same principals with better tools. > > > > Evo-Devo made a great set of contributions not mentioned directly in the > paper. > > > > This is a disturbing topic when examined carefully. Philosophers rarely > examine parasites on carcasses of the dead, let alone count them. They see > only what they expect. > > They were always averse to the smell of science. So my answer is No not > usually. Since it stinks. > > > > The bias appears to originate in our simple minds that can not cope with > more than 3 dimensions . A living system need not be so limited for that > matter neither is mathematics (see Snarks > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snark_(graph_theory ). > > Darwin is now a relic fought over by fools. I count Dawkins among the > fools, he started out well but soon degenerated into a strange demented > warrior against Theists. > > > > I love the discussions and even though I can not always respond I look > forward to reading. > > vib > > > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick > Thompson > *Sent:* October-25-14 12:21 AM > > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Does philosophy have a heuristic value > > > > Nice paper, roger. I posted it to the thread. Any chance I will see you > next Friday? N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 11:48 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Does philosophy have a heuristic value > > > > > http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ptb;view=text;rgn=main;idno=6959004.0001.003 > > > > Most biologists are philosophically and biologically incoherent on this > subject. > > > > -- rec -- > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Nick Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Friammers, > > > > Often in FRIAM I have been called upon to defend philosophy as an > important part of the scientific enterprise Recently, on research gate, > somebody posed the following question: > > > > - *Has the philosophical analysis contributed to solve any biological > conceptual problems?* > *Of course the first question would be how many conceptual/empirical > problems, of philosophy's interest the biology has? How many of those > problems has been solved?* > *Just in case of any extremist response, what would you say to a > biology scientists who thinks that the philosophy cannot solve anything?* > > The discussion (such as it is) can be found at : > > > https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_philosophical_analysis_contributed_to_solve_any_biological_conceptual_problems#544a6a0ad685cc4d678b4654 > > > > It seemed only to confirm the questioner’s fears that philosophers of > science are neither the generals who set the battle nor the diplomats that > make the peace, but are merely the scavengers that bicker over the spoils > of war. . . > > > > N > > > > > > I think we can do better. > > > > See you next week. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
