Posted by
Steve Smith on
Apr 11, 2013; 8:38pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/pluralism-in-science-tp7582640p7582642.html
Doug -
This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb
question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what
value do they provide? Serious question.
Straight out of Wikipedia (for convenience, not because it is
necessarily an infallible authority):
The
philosophy of science is concerned
with all the assumptions, foundations,
methods, implications of
science,
and with the use and merit of science. This discipline sometimes
overlaps
metaphysics,
ontology
and
epistemology, viz., when it explores
whether scientific results comprise a study of
truth.
I know you call this a serious question, but I think it might be
argumentative, restating your declaration/assumption that philosophy
has no value, at least not in the context of science? I think you
are using a fallacious definition of the term philosophy perhaps.
Also out of Wikipedia (same caveats):
Philosophy is the study of general and
fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality,
existence,
knowledge, values,
reason,
mind, and language.[1][2]
Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such
problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its
reliance on rational argument.[3]
In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to
"the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual
or group".
I know you well enough to believe that if you accept these
definitions (of philosophy and philosophy of science) that you would
acknowledge the value of both. Can you confirm or deny that
apprehension? I suspect your suspicion of the terms/fields and
their utility is based on a different understanding of the
term(s). I suspect you use the term "philosophy" roughly in the
same way I use the term "wanking".
I will acknowledge that many with limited or no formal training in
science will resort to all sorts of specious rhetoric or sophistry
to make claims about reality. However, I would claim that a similar
number of us (you in this case?) use the term "Philosophy" roughly
to describe the very same *small subset* of discourse/thinking.
Philosophy in general and philosophy of science in particular frame
the relevance of science and it's limits. Many of the tools of
science (mathematics, logic, formal reasoning) are not *part of
Science*. Perhaps you use the term "philosophy" to mean all parts
of philosophy that are NOT directly relevant to science (e.g.
theology for sure, epistomology maybe, aesthetics probably,
non-physical cosmology, ... etc.) perhaps you use "science" to
describe science itself plus all of the parts of philosophy of
direct relevance (physical cosmology, logic, mathematics, and
possibly parts of language, epistimology, ontology and
metaphysics). This use of "science" would then of course be
tautological.
I'm sure there are others here more well educated in Philosophy than
I. I'm sure I have made at least a few mis-statements or
mis-implications in this shoot-from-the hip response.
I also think there are bigger implications to the discussion about
Science vs Philosophy. Tory has brought up some of the issues of
"Philosophy as studied/presented by the white male patriarchy" which
opens own issues and I suspect some of our other more
non-Western-leaning members (Dave Wade, Carl Tollander, Rich Murray,
Sarbajit Roy, ???) may have *yet another* perspective to add.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com