3 ms·
This article leans heavily on an analogy between philosophy and physics and/or economics. This analogy is not generally accepted by most philosophers. Briefly:
by scythe 8y ago
This article leans heavily on an analogy between philosophy and physics and/or economics. This analogy is not generally accepted by most philosophers. Briefly: philosophy is not a science.
>Again this assumes that the job of the distiller is to summarize the original author. A good analysis book doesn’t summarize Newton it digests his insights and presents them as part of a grander theory.
Calculus is certainly part of a more general theory. The works of e.g. Kierkegaard may have relevance to some theories of philosophy, e.g. existentialism, but the best analysis of how Kierkegaard contributed to existentialism is still not a real analysis of Kierkegaard. Philosophy deals with a person's most fundamental beliefs, and because of that we often want to look at the whole actual person whose life grows up around those beliefs. That is not the case in physics or economics.
- Brotkrumen 8y ago>This analogy is not generally accepted by most philosophers. Briefly: philosophy is not a science. Which philosophers are you referring to? I'd agree with "many" but "most" is an empirical claim I'd not be brave enough to make. Do you perhaps mean to say "economics isn't a natural science"? Case in point: there is tons of kuhnians running around that think of science as a consent-seeking endeavor with agreed upon principles. They recognise that any hard delineation between say econ not being a science but physics being one, usually kicks out a lot of progress in physics as not scientific. Especially those theoretical physics whose predictions are extremely fruitful bbut where experimental data is out of reach right now.