dmb said:
While it's true that any Ph.D. qualifies you as a philosopher in some broad
sense, biotech and metaphysics are distinctly different disciplines. And of
course this biotech background explains why I was unable to detect any signs of
philosophical expertise.
Mark replied:
I am not quite sure what you mean by "broad sense". If we are discussing
metaphysics, it is the presentation of a Reality. Biotech is a presentation of
reality as much as any metaphysics is. Why do you think it is called a
doctorate of philosophy? Do you think this is some kind of accidental
classification? ...Can you categorically say that biotech and metaphysics are
different? If so, what premises do you draw on? What exactly do you think
science is? Both metaphysics and biotech are disciplines within the framework
of philosophy. I live in the world of biotech, and I can categorically say
that it is metaphysics.
dmb says:
My skepticism grows. Maybe the Doctorate has a different meaning in England. I
seriously doubt it but it's possible.
Anyone with a Ph.D. is considered to be a philosopher in the sense that they
understand theoretical limits and epistemological standards of their own
discipline. In your case, you would have had to grapple with the standards and
methods of two distinctly different disciplines and found a way to reconcile
the discrepancies by blending them somehow. In other words, the Doctorate makes
you a philosopher about your own field so that you understand what the
standards of truth are in your field, what counts as valid reasoning with
respect to your particular subject matter. The psychologist has to handle data
that's very different from the kind of data that physicists deal with. Since we
can't rightly study poetry with the methods of chemistry, these methods are
themselves subjects of inquiry. Somebody with a Doctorate is supposed to have
thought very carefully about the methods and standards. Doctors are supposed to
be very interested in the limits and validity of their own field.
It's like a pre-requisite to ensure that one can properly add something to the
body knowledge in that field. That's what the title is supposed to mean, I
think.
dmb said:
...one of the comments that made me question your philosophical expertise [was
about] the battle between ontology and epistemology? That's what the MOQ delves
into? I don't know what you mean by that.
Mark replied:
Because you do not understand my comments you question my philosophical
expertise? How does that work exactly? If you do not understand a complex
book do you question the author's expertise?
dmb says:
Sometimes I fail to understand complex things. Sometimes I can't make sense of
things because they're drivel. Naturally, I'd like to believe that I can tell
the difference. Hasn't everyone encountered a nonsense-spewing bullshitter at
one time or another?
Mark, for example, said:
In terms of Epistemology and Ontology: Mathematical Truth. semantics and
epistemology the battle between Epistemology and Ontology. dialectic. the
dialectic between being and knowing. The ontological mode "the view from
nowhere" Thomas Nagel "the world as I found it" Wittgenstein Edmund Husserl
intuitive view of reality. structural Western mentality. The forking of human
thought bring Ontology and Epistemology back together. destruction.
Construction Any reply on this is more than welcome.
dmb says:
A tossed salad of jargon, vagueness and name-dropping. (Have you been taking
philosophology lessons from Matt?) My skepticism grows further. (Ever see that
old movie, "The Blob"?)
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/md/archives.html
