3 ms·
I actually think 'hard data' is typically about as relevant to philosophy as it is to maths. Not everything is reducible to stats. I just find it weird to be u
by pasabagi 8y ago
I actually think 'hard data' is typically about as relevant to philosophy as it is to maths. Not everything is reducible to stats.
I just find it weird to be using a machine that's a recognizable descendant of the work of philosophers, as much as engineers or mathematicians, then to be saying casually that philosophy isn't rigorous.
- foldr 8y ago>I actually think 'hard data' is typically about as relevant to philosophy as it is to maths. Not everything is reducible to stats. Oh yes, I agree entirely on that point.
- Retric 8y agoYou could argue using hard data is less rigorous. But, in practice people make mistakes so without verification Philosophy and math is again arguably less rigorous, depending on what you mean by that word.
- pasabagi 8y agoRigour is pretty hard to rigorously define. If we could, then epistemology would be complete.