Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Locked
Re: Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
 
|
...and I always had you down as an Islay malt man...
-- R
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
|
|
Both are pure nectar. Lately, I've been leaning towards Tullamore Dew as a tipple of choice...
And the answer is "Yes!" in either case. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote: ...and I always had you down as an Islay malt man... -- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Great post, Robert. Thanks.
Would you agree that we could readily find examples of the recent import of scientific ideas into philosophy? So the modern traffic does seem to move in at least that direction.
So, to look for contradictions to your proposal, I need to find cases where philosophical ideas have found their way into scientific practice. Would Bayes be an example? I realize that Bayes himself isnt modern, but there seem to be a moment in the sixties when "we" in psychology were required to start thinking about statistics differently and it certainly wasnt coming from our field. Another example might be Thomas Kuhn.
I am guilty as charged by Doug of using this list to pick people's brains, so if you don't want to have yours picked, just leave this alone.
thanks for the post,
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
"Guilty" is such an ugly word. How about if we use "complicit", or "implicated", or "I have an alibi, I was with my girlfriend at the time, Officer!"
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Roger Frye-3
Here's TG at his best:
http://math-blog.com/2008/03/31/on-the-importance-of-mathematics/ The video is 8-parts. Lovely graph-theoretic proof of the importance of mathematics! -- Owen On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Roger Frye wrote: > Gowers edited the magnificent Princeton Companion to Mathematics > http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8350.html > It's a bargain at $0.10/page. > > On Jul 12, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Robert Holmes wrote: > >> By the way, if anyone feels like exercising their gray matter, the >> author of VSI Mathematics (Timothy Gowers) has a rather nice math- >> oriented blog at http://gowers.wordpress.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
An intriguing question Nick. I'm afraid though that my answer is likely to be awfully rambling; so on the grounds that I'm responsible (at least in this thread) for "Please God no", I'll reply off-list. More soon
-- Robert
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Robert, Nick, et. al, Great
post, Robert. Thanks. Would
you agree that we could readily find examples of the recent import of
scientific ideas into philosophy? So the modern traffic does seem to move
in at least that direction. So,
to look for contradictions to your proposal, I need to find cases where
philosophical ideas have found their way into scientific practice. Would
Bayes be an example? I realize that Bayes himself isnt modern, but
there seem to be a moment in the sixties when "we" in psychology were
required to start thinking about statistics differently and it certainly wasnt
coming from our field. Another example might be Thomas Kuhn. I
am guilty as charged by Doug of using this list to pick people's brains, so if
you don't want to have yours picked, just leave this alone. thanks
for the post, Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthompson@...) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----
Original Message ----- From: Robert
Holmes To: glen e. p. ropella;The Friday Morning
Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: 7/13/2009 8:21:31 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think the argument (I
paraphrase) "all math/science is traceable back to
Aristotle/Parmenides/Zeno/pick-your-philosopher, therefore everything
subsequent is mere derivations of their original thoughts" is not
completely sound. It's probably reasonable up to the period of Newton,
Descartes and Leibniz: these people were philosophers and scientists.
As has been pointed out several times, there was no real distinction between
the two practices: they were just the one entity - natural philosophy. But then came the Scientific
Revolution and during the 16th-18th centuries both
disciplines professionalized and - for all but a
few exceptional individuals - they split. Philosophers did
philosophy, scientists did science. Philosophers might comment on what was
happening in science but that does not mean that they were driving it or
suggesting the questions that scientists should ask. Philosophy might comment
on science but - for most practitioners of science - it did not inform science.
My own experience bears this
out. I'm a physicist and have worked in research environments all my
professional life. When my colleagues and I discuss research priorities, or
potential areas for study, or appropriate methodologies we refer to the work of
other scientists, not philosophers. I don't think this is unusual. I strongly
suspect that it is the work of other scientists and the lessons we learn from
our scientific mentors that drive our scientific endeavors. -- Robert ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Dang! I was going to go off-list but you dragged me back in...
I know next to nothing about your fields of expertise, but Wikipedia agrees with you, so you must be right. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophers#20th_century_philosophy:
In the latter half of the twentieth century, analytic philosophy diffused into a wide variety of disparate philosophical views, only loosely united by historical lines of influence and a self-identified commitment to clarity and rigor. Since roughly 1960, analytic philosophy has shown a revival of interest in the history of philosophy, as well as attempts to integrate philosophical work with scientific results, especially in psychology and cognitive science. And now to physics, chemists and mathematics. I don't agree with your conception that having "theoretical" in front of your name makes you a philosopher rather than a scientist. I've known too many theoretical physicists to buy that. Try this experiment: here's the list of Nobel laureates in physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics . Read down that list, and see how many names you associate with significant contributions to philosophy as well as physics. Personally, I didn't see that many. I'm sure some of them have philosophical thoughts but (quite seriously) who doesn't? Not everyone gets to be a professional philosopher!
As to why Harvard keeps them around, I'd suggest that it's because of the professionalization of philosophy that I referred to earlier in the thread. Harvard keep them around for the same reason that they keep professors of medieval French literature around. Because that academic discipline is an important thing in its own right, not because it is of use in some other discipline.
I've rambled long enough. I'll "Please God No" myself now and sign off, -- Robert P.S. And before someone asks me about maths, yes Russell & Godel are clearly philosophers as well as mathematicians. But how many of the following would you consider philosophers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_medal (I can guess your answer Nick - "All of them!")
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:19 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Philosophy vs Philosopher
Thanks to Robert for weighing in on the topic so eloquently after having offered us "please god no!" earlier on. It validates that this is a worthy thread of discussion, even for those who might prefer more concrete topics. I personally never thought this thread was about trying to prove that Philosophers "did science", but rather the modes of thought and methods of Philosophy were key in Scientific Progress. I believe that Robert has helped to make that point quite well. I agree with him that few of the thinkers (Mathematician/Scientists) referenced would be primarily described as Philosophers... but I doubt that many if any would insist that they were disinterested or disengaged completely from Philosophy. I'm sure the topic is far from put to rest, but I hear in the last few mailings a *lot* of progress toward this point of view. During my fourth year of undergrad Physics, I took a special topics class with about 6 of my peers and one of my more progressive Physics profs. The other students took on various specific hard-physics topics which I was very fascinated and informed by. I took on the question of "how philosophy informs physics". The rest of the class responded like Robert with "Please God No!" but my professor gave me some very low key encouragement and I proceeded. By the end of the semester (we each gave reports to the rest of the class as we progressed), I think every other student "got it"... and by this, I mean that they understood that Philosophy wasn't (just) a bunch of dead white guys arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. They seemed to understand that the way one approaches knowledge and language and perception, really does matter in how you interpret the physical world and the rules it apparently operates by. I myself learned a lot. I had started the project with a bit of a flip attitude, wanting mostly to make the point that not everything to be understood in the world was strictly empirical. The most persuasive arguement (I think) for this bunch of 21 year olds was my reviewing Einstein's many GedankenExperiments... they had all been plenty exposed to this during their earlier coursework, but had somehow never connected that a "thought experiment" was essentially an exercise in Philosophy. The fact that Einstein was so famous for this, and so well respected turned out to be very persuasive. Abruptly, those who had tried to scoff at Zeno and who really didn't get the import of Godel (none had any CS training) were taking a more careful second look at the many "abstract thinkers" who had so helped to form/shape their chosen field. When it comes to paradigms for structuring our understanding of the Universe, it is very difficult (in my experience) to think outside the paradigm you have been raised in, or trained in. Philosophers do not necessarily think outside of their own boxes, but it is part of their territory to try, or at least to risk it. Most other thinkers are, by definition, confined to making their life's work, the elaboration of the interior of their boxes without ever noticing the context of those boxes. Or that there even IS a context for said box. carry on, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
As the OP, I'd like to remind ourselves that the original question was:
Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work in the same way mathematics does? Our wanderings are important, but can we also attempt to answer The Question? Please note I did not say: - Mathematics is superior to Philosophy. - Language is bad, symbolics is good. I think I have the answer, but I'd like yours as well. -- Owen On Jul 9, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: > Nick, Glen, Russ, Eric, and many of us who have participated in the > recent spate of philosophical conversations .. I'd like to ask a > question: > > Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work > in the same way mathematics does? > > In trying to answer this, I looked briefly into the philosopher > recommended by Timothy Gowers in his VSI to Mathematics. In Gowers' > wrestling with the abstract (or possibly purely pragmatic) approach > to mathematics, he was profoundly affected by Wittgenstein. I'm > enjoying the VSI to Wittgenstein, and am impressed by his analytic > approach. > > Frank, in the past, has mentioned that modern philosophy might be > becoming more formal, turning to a more mathematical approach > (apparently flourishing at CMU). Some call it Analytic Philosophy, > which includes Wittgenstein. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy > > So the question to the philosophic amongst us: what is the answer to > the above question? Is there a way in which philosophy can build on > past work in the same way mathematics does? Is there an epsilon/ > delta breakthrough just waiting to happen in that domain? Will > there be a "Modern Algebra" unification within philosophy, finding > the common ground amongst widely different concepts like symmetry > groups, fields, rings, Hilbert spaces and the like? > > -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
Thus spake Owen Densmore circa 09-07-15 09:20 AM:
> As the OP, I'd like to remind ourselves that the original question was: > Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work > in the same way mathematics does? > > Our wanderings are important, but can we also attempt to answer The > Question? [grin] I can't resist reminding you that I have answered the question: because philosophy is pre-math, or perhaps extra-math. (I can't use "meta-math", though I could use "meta-meta-math". ;-) Philosophy doesn't build on philosophy. It builds new math based on interpretations of old math. (More accurately, it builds new constructs that may or may not be further developed into math... or science, or psychology, or whatever domain in which the philosopher works.) Similarly, new philosophy of science does not build on old philosophy of science. It builds new science based on interpretations of old science. It builds new <whatever> based on interpretations of old <whatever>. Note that where philosophy fails to constructively build new <whatever>, that failure doesn't diminish the necessity of the philosophy. Mathematicians who do not engage in philosophy (call them what you want) are not pushing the boundaries of math. They may be inventing new theorems and proving them true within the pre-existing, settled body of accepted math. But without philosophy, they are not making math more expressive or powerful. Lucky for most math PhDs, I'm not and never will be on any thesis committees, because I would _require_ a doctor of philosophy to ... well, do philosophy. ;-) No philosophy, no PhD. So, regarding the recent "Please God, No" issue. I regard anyone who is NOT a philosopher, at least to some extent, to be a mere tradesman or worse, an assembly line worker. These people are necessary and valuable; but they don't really construct anything. They merely assist their bosses (the philosophers of X) in the attempt to construct some X. And finally that leads us to my practicable point-of-view, which is that if the sfComplex and/or FRIAM want to construct things, rather than merely assisting in someone else's attempts to construct things, they/we _must_ be philosophers and must "do philosophy", albeit within very pragmatic constraints. To be clear, an absence of philosophy guarantees a failed sfComplex/FRIAM. But, of course, the presence of philosophy does not guarantee the success of sfComplex/FRIAM. And, further, a preponderance of failed philosophy will put any potential success at risk. So the practical, constructive thing to do, as organizers of FRIAM/sfComplex, is to define/test methods for engaging in constructive philosophy. For example, a mandate might be that all these discussions must result in an artifact, be it a wiki page, a simulation, or just an influence graph showing, say, how Zeno contributed to the Riemann Zeta function. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Glen,
===>wide grin of recognition and fellow feeling<=== That is why I have found this discussion so ..... preposterous. Not a one of the people who has taken the "Please God no" position has the faintest ressemblence to a mindless tradesman, parameterizer, crank turner, etc. All are philosophers in the sense that they have, at one time or another, questioned the logic or relevance-to-goals of some project that others are hell-bent to pursue. They are bomb-throwers throwing bombs at bombthrowing. But let's not go back there! The discussion is now going gangbusters and I am learning stuff at fabulous side. Many have sent me material on the side which I am seeking permision to post and what with trips to Boston, etc., I am falling behind. But I will catch up as soon as i can. thanks everybody, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 7/15/2009 11:19:16 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > > Thus spake Owen Densmore circa 09-07-15 09:20 AM: > > As the OP, I'd like to remind ourselves that the original question was: > > Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work > > in the same way mathematics does? > > > > Our wanderings are important, but can we also attempt to answer The > > Question? > > [grin] I can't resist reminding you that I have answered the question: > because philosophy is pre-math, or perhaps extra-math. (I can't use > "meta-math", though I could use "meta-meta-math". ;-) Philosophy > doesn't build on philosophy. It builds new math based on > interpretations of old math. (More accurately, it builds new constructs > that may or may not be further developed into math... or science, or > psychology, or whatever domain in which the philosopher works.) > Similarly, new philosophy of science does not build on old philosophy of > science. It builds new science based on interpretations of old science. > It builds new <whatever> based on interpretations of old <whatever>. > Note that where philosophy fails to constructively build new <whatever>, > that failure doesn't diminish the necessity of the philosophy. > > Mathematicians who do not engage in philosophy (call them what you want) > are not pushing the boundaries of math. They may be inventing new > theorems and proving them true within the pre-existing, settled body of > accepted math. But without philosophy, they are not making math more > expressive or powerful. Lucky for most math PhDs, I'm not and never > will be on any thesis committees, because I would _require_ a doctor of > philosophy to ... well, do philosophy. ;-) No philosophy, no PhD. > > So, regarding the recent "Please God, No" issue. I regard anyone who is > NOT a philosopher, at least to some extent, to be a mere tradesman or > worse, an assembly line worker. These people are necessary and > valuable; but they don't really construct anything. They merely assist > their bosses (the philosophers of X) in the attempt to construct some X. > > And finally that leads us to my practicable point-of-view, which is that > if the sfComplex and/or FRIAM want to construct things, rather than > merely assisting in someone else's attempts to construct things, they/we > _must_ be philosophers and must "do philosophy", albeit within very > pragmatic constraints. > > To be clear, an absence of philosophy guarantees a failed > sfComplex/FRIAM. But, of course, the presence of philosophy does not > guarantee the success of sfComplex/FRIAM. And, further, a preponderance > of failed philosophy will put any potential success at risk. > > So the practical, constructive thing to do, as organizers of > FRIAM/sfComplex, is to define/test methods for engaging in constructive > philosophy. For example, a mandate might be that all these discussions > must result in an artifact, be it a wiki page, a simulation, or just an > influence graph showing, say, how Zeno contributed to the Riemann Zeta > function. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
<BASE href="file://C:\Users\Rikus\Documents\My Stationery\">
I think it is attractive to build on prior work in mathematics,
because it is implicitly trusted as solid and well-constructed all the way to
the foundations. The existing mathematical edifice is *true* in
all senses of the word. From a Platonist perspective it is not even a
matter of building as much as uncovering additional parts of a glorious,
existing construction. Even acknowledging foundational issues, those
parts of the subject that have direct application, works remarkably
well.
Significant philosophical contributions, on the other hand, often tend to be significant precisely because they show where prior work is inadequate, weak, wrong, i.e. not fit to be built on. Lack of rigour means you can never really trust the other guy's foundations and lack of direct application means you can't test them either, so best to dig your own. Regards, Rikus -------------------------------------------------- From: "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:20 PM To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As the OP, I'd like to remind ourselves that the original question was: Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work in the same way mathematics does? Our wanderings are important, but can we also attempt to answer The Question? Please note I did not say: - Mathematics is superior to Philosophy. - Language is bad, symbolics is good. I think I have the answer, but I'd like yours as well. -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |