Posted by
glen e. p. ropella-2 on
Jul 15, 2009; 5:18pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Analytic-philosophy-Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-tp3235494p3264641.html
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