4 ms·

>How do we choose which ones to teach? Which one leads to a richer vein of further research? Which one makes better predictions? Which one finds more applica

>How do we choose which ones to teach? Which one leads to a richer vein of further research? Which one makes better predictions? Which one finds more applications? Diversity and scope can be important only so far as they improve the systems in terms of scientific validity. Your arguments are exactly the ones used by creationists for the purpose of making that internally consistent system seem as valid as the theory of evolution.

EthanHeilman 10y ago
>Your arguments are exactly the ones used by creationists for the purpose of making that internally consistent system seem as valid as the theory of evolution. Science is different than Mathematics in that science must be both internally and externally consistent.
- clavalle 10y ago
  Fair enough, but mathematics is robustly internally consistent. If a mathematical idea leads to the same results as another mathematical idea with no contradiction it is considered true and is celebrated. These ideas also need to avoid running afoul of fundamental axioms. I don't know much about philosophy but it seems like ideas lead directly to irreconcilable contradictions should be either thrown out or isolated into their own system (if the resulting system is rich enough) and those that fit into a system and lead to new paths of insight should be included in that system. Contradictions between systems should be explored but it seems that expanding an already rich system should be preferred to forcing contradictions into a coherent system or weakening working ideas to make room for ideas that don't lead anywhere new. Maybe that is what the author is advocating -- separate internally consistent systems and a relinquishing of the umbrella term Philosophy to make room for separate systems. But the title -- 'If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is' seems to suggest a preference for Philosophy to diversify, to throw everything under the same big tent, contradictions and all, which I really don't think is helpful.

EthanHeilman 10y ago

>Your arguments are exactly the ones used by creationists for the purpose of making that internally consistent system seem as valid as the theory of evolution. Science is different than Mathematics in that science must be both internally and externally consistent.

clavalle 10y ago
Fair enough, but mathematics is robustly internally consistent. If a mathematical idea leads to the same results as another mathematical idea with no contradiction it is considered true and is celebrated. These ideas also need to avoid running afoul of fundamental axioms. I don't know much about philosophy but it seems like ideas lead directly to irreconcilable contradictions should be either thrown out or isolated into their own system (if the resulting system is rich enough) and those that fit into a system and lead to new paths of insight should be included in that system. Contradictions between systems should be explored but it seems that expanding an already rich system should be preferred to forcing contradictions into a coherent system or weakening working ideas to make room for ideas that don't lead anywhere new. Maybe that is what the author is advocating -- separate internally consistent systems and a relinquishing of the umbrella term Philosophy to make room for separate systems. But the title -- 'If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is' seems to suggest a preference for Philosophy to diversify, to throw everything under the same big tent, contradictions and all, which I really don't think is helpful.