3 ms·

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 t

by 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.
        mannykannot 11y ago
        I came back to edit this (but I am too late) because I think I am being unnecessarily confrontational. Here is how I would reply today: I get your point that scientists sometimes do things that can be described as philosophy in the broad sense, but generally, I do not think they would be able to do that if they had been educated in academic philosophy. I believe Bohr himself falls into this category. It would be more accurate to say that philosophy is dependent on science in these matters. I also get the point that scientists use the scientific method that was developed by people who can be called philosophers, but they developed science through doing it, and that is not a dependent relationship even if you call what they did philosophy. With regard to examples, I am sticking with my position that they are the only argument that really counts (which is why I suggested it to pierrec), but I don’t think there are none: for example, I think Daniel Dennett has made many valuable contributions to cognitive science, and made a number of trenchant observations with regard to the expectations of computational neurologists.

by olavk 11y ago

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.
      - mannykannot 11y ago
        I came back to edit this (but I am too late) because I think I am being unnecessarily confrontational. Here is how I would reply today: I get your point that scientists sometimes do things that can be described as philosophy in the broad sense, but generally, I do not think they would be able to do that if they had been educated in academic philosophy. I believe Bohr himself falls into this category. It would be more accurate to say that philosophy is dependent on science in these matters. I also get the point that scientists use the scientific method that was developed by people who can be called philosophers, but they developed science through doing it, and that is not a dependent relationship even if you call what they did philosophy. With regard to examples, I am sticking with my position that they are the only argument that really counts (which is why I suggested it to pierrec), but I don’t think there are none: for example, I think Daniel Dennett has made many valuable contributions to cognitive science, and made a number of trenchant observations with regard to the expectations of computational neurologists.