>
>but you said that "there is no single point to philosophical study of
>science or any other human activity." Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning
>of "single" here, so that what you're saying is that there are _many_
>points to the philosophical study of science.
That's right.
>
>It seems to me that philosophy has several special subject matters, such as
>metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, logic, ethics, and "human nature."
No, those are just course classifications. They are not subject matters the
way the economy is a subject matter for economists or the behavior of
fundamental quantities to physicists.
The
>way I've always seen philosophy is more _directional_, however: that is,
>philosophy involves looking into propositions and theories more _deeply_,
>to examine the premises, definitions, logic, and completeness.
That's pretty vague.
>>JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientistr What Is Good Method.
>
>JD They can tell them, but only a small number will listen.
I was unclear. I meant: We _should_ not tell them. We have no special
knowledge. No one appointed us the method police.
I, for one,
>say
>that scientists who reflect on their method (rather than cranking out
>"science" following convention) are likely to be the better scientists.
Agreed.
--jks
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
