4 ms·

"without having to ask a philosopher"? What does that even mean? The distinction between scientist and philosophers is pretty recent. Clearly Aristotle was also

by olavk 11y ago

"without having to ask a philosopher"? What does that even mean? The distinction between scientist and philosophers is pretty recent. Clearly Aristotle was also a scientist even though we call him a philosopher, and clearly Bohr was also a philosopher even though we know him best as a scientist. Science and the philosophy of science have developed together, and often by the same people.

mannykannot 11y ago
>"without having to ask a philosopher"? What does that even mean? I am at a loss as to how to be any clearer, but perhaps that's because I am looking at the whole sentence in the context of the thread. Could you be more specific about what problem you are having with it? There was a time when people doing science were considered philosophers; at the same time, some of them were considered astrologers or alchemists - Newton was active in both of these fields, and that was not, as it seems to some people now, an aberration or contradiction. These philosophers / astrologers / alchemists synthesized the scientific method, but the modern philosophy of science is descriptive, not prescriptive: philosophers like Popper and Kuhn were describing the scientific method as it had already been developed by practicing scientists, without being led there by academic philosophy. The historical role of people, who now are or were then regarded as philosophers, in the early development of science does not imply that current science is behoven to current academic philosophy. Your attempt to conflate philosophy and science raises the question of why a university would need an independent philosophy department, and I think you would find its members to be the ones most strongly defending its existence. If you were to go to the top of this thread, you would find that the distinction between science and philosophy is being made by pierrec’s philosopher-student friend. If you want to argue that there is no meaningful difference, perhaps you should first persuade the people who identify themselves as philosophers.
- olavk 11y ago
  My point is that figuring out what constitutes science is philosophy, regardless of who does the figuring out. It's not like it is science if a scientist does the thinking but philosophy if someone from the philosophy department does the same.
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    The problem with this line of argument is that one could just as well say that logic is philosophy, so anyone who reasons about anything is a philosopher... it is not so much a wrong argument as it is a pointless one, leading to a trite and unhelpful conclusion that strips the word 'philosopher' of any useful meaning. In the context established by pierrec's original post, a more meaningful question is 'what contributions are academic philosophers currently making to the sciences?' Then there's the fact that you have ended up agreeing with me that scientists can do it themselves.
    - olavk 11y ago
      Of course scientists can do philosophy, that was my point in mentioning Bohr as an example. And before modern specialization there was no clear distinction between philosophy and science, and for example Kant also did natural science even though he is most well known as a philosopher Logic has traditionally (at least since Aristotle) been considered a critical branch of philosophy.
      - mannykannot 11y ago
        Neither of these facts refute any of the points I have made in this thread. Perhaps it would help if you were to state clearly what point you think you are making here, and why that point belongs in this thread.
        olavk 11y ago
        That science needs philosophy like a hand needs a thumb.
        mannykannot 11y ago
        Here I get to say, with reason in this case, what does that even mean? You apparently practice the passive-aggressive school of philosophy - the one where you write as if you are disagreeing with someone, but you neither offer any specific rebuttals of the other's arguments, nor do you make any specific, refutable statements about your own position. But none of this matters anyway. If you want to argue that science needs philosophy, and regardless of what metaphor you are trying to pass off as an actual argument, the one thing you have to do is to show one or more significant examples where contemporary science has depended on contemporary philosophy. Without that, anything else is just talking around the issue. Of all the people who have replied to this thread, only shabda seems to understand this.

by olavk 11y ago

mannykannot 11y ago

>"without having to ask a philosopher"? What does that even mean? I am at a loss as to how to be any clearer, but perhaps that's because I am looking at the whole sentence in the context of the thread. Could you be more specific about what problem you are having with it? There was a time when people doing science were considered philosophers; at the same time, some of them were considered astrologers or alchemists - Newton was active in both of these fields, and that was not, as it seems to some people now, an aberration or contradiction. These philosophers / astrologers / alchemists synthesized the scientific method, but the modern philosophy of science is descriptive, not prescriptive: philosophers like Popper and Kuhn were describing the scientific method as it had already been developed by practicing scientists, without being led there by academic philosophy. The historical role of people, who now are or were then regarded as philosophers, in the early development of science does not imply that current science is behoven to current academic philosophy. Your attempt to conflate philosophy and science raises the question of why a university would need an independent philosophy department, and I think you would find its members to be the ones most strongly defending its existence. If you were to go to the top of this thread, you would find that the distinction between science and philosophy is being made by pierrec’s philosopher-student friend. If you want to argue that there is no meaningful difference, perhaps you should first persuade the people who identify themselves as philosophers.

olavk 11y ago
My point is that figuring out what constitutes science is philosophy, regardless of who does the figuring out. It's not like it is science if a scientist does the thinking but philosophy if someone from the philosophy department does the same.
- mannykannot 11y ago
  The problem with this line of argument is that one could just as well say that logic is philosophy, so anyone who reasons about anything is a philosopher... it is not so much a wrong argument as it is a pointless one, leading to a trite and unhelpful conclusion that strips the word 'philosopher' of any useful meaning. In the context established by pierrec's original post, a more meaningful question is 'what contributions are academic philosophers currently making to the sciences?' Then there's the fact that you have ended up agreeing with me that scientists can do it themselves.
  - olavk 11y ago
    Of course scientists can do philosophy, that was my point in mentioning Bohr as an example. And before modern specialization there was no clear distinction between philosophy and science, and for example Kant also did natural science even though he is most well known as a philosopher Logic has traditionally (at least since Aristotle) been considered a critical branch of philosophy.
    - mannykannot 11y ago
      Neither of these facts refute any of the points I have made in this thread. Perhaps it would help if you were to state clearly what point you think you are making here, and why that point belongs in this thread.
      - olavk 11y ago
        That science needs philosophy like a hand needs a thumb.
        mannykannot 11y ago
        Here I get to say, with reason in this case, what does that even mean? You apparently practice the passive-aggressive school of philosophy - the one where you write as if you are disagreeing with someone, but you neither offer any specific rebuttals of the other's arguments, nor do you make any specific, refutable statements about your own position. But none of this matters anyway. If you want to argue that science needs philosophy, and regardless of what metaphor you are trying to pass off as an actual argument, the one thing you have to do is to show one or more significant examples where contemporary science has depended on contemporary philosophy. Without that, anything else is just talking around the issue. Of all the people who have replied to this thread, only shabda seems to understand this.