Hi Krim
Good. Equally great new concepts can and do come
from outside of science. Was not Bohr inspired by
Kierkegaard? You might even therefore say religion
funnily enough. I suspect the most radical changes to
concepts are most likely to be found in the most
unlikely and distant places. Darwin took his ideas
from economic theory, etc etc.
DM
[DM]
Philosophy is one word, another is critical thinking.
This seems to me key and goes further than science.
Science stays focused on experience and experiments.
But to do science or anything else we nee language
and concepts. Philosophy and critical thinking get us to
think about language and concepts, challenging them,
checking out our understanding of them, asking if we need
new concepts and new languages and suiggesting what these
might be. Science started as natural philosophy and got going
once the right concepts and approaches were available.
It works well now, but we cannot assume that its current concepts
are complete and fully adequate. It has many tricky problems, these
may be overcome by experiments and experience, or they may
need new concepts. This is why Einstein thought experiements are
as much philosophy as science as they challenge and change our
concepts.
[Krimel]
Fair enough for the most part but science relies on and produces critical
thinking. Philosophy has no claim on a monopoly or even superiority in
that
regard.
No one in science assumes that "...its current concepts are complete and
fully adequate."
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
