http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Analytic-philosophy-Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-tp3235494p3264772.html
That is why I have found this discussion so ..... preposterous. Not a one
ressemblence to a mindless tradesman, parameterizer, crank turner, etc.
hell-bent to pursue. They are bomb-throwers throwing bombs at
bombthrowing.
am learning stuff at fabulous side. Many have sent me material on the side
am falling behind. But I will catch up as soon as i can.
Nicholas S. Thompson
> From: glen e. p. ropella <
>
> 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.orgMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College