4 ms·

> So pure theory is not for everyone. But if you love theory, philosophy is the top of the heap of all the disciplines. I think calling philosophy "theory" is

by opaque 8y ago

> So pure theory is not for everyone. But if you love theory, philosophy is the top of the heap of all the disciplines. I think calling philosophy "theory" is a bit of a reach. Theories (Relativity, Quantum, Evolution) draw on, and can be falsified by, direct evidence. Philosophy is more argumentation on subjects that won't have scientific basis (morality, meaning of life) or don't yet have one and may never (consciousness).

amelius 8y ago
But remember that the scientific method itself is defined by philosophers, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Emma_Goldman 8y ago
You are confusing 'scientific theory' with the term 'theory', which is far looser, i.e. a system of ideas.
n4r9 8y ago
"Theory" is a much broader term than "scientific theory", which is what you're defining. For example, in mathematics you have the "theory of natural numbers", or in art you have the "anti-essentialist theory". These aren't required to be hypotheses about the real-world. Rather they are like frameworks or languages which enable us to discuss and explore complex structures.
- opaque 8y ago
  Perhaps I'm inclined to read it that way from working in physics, which is divided into theory and experiment. He also refers to 'experimentalists' in the preceding sentence, which adds to the effect. Also if you take the fully general meaning, it's so vague I don't understand how it's something you can 'love', but then maybe that's why I'm not a Philosopher. Edit: The author's work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Maudlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Maudlin is all on the Theoretical Physics / Philosophy boarder, in which "theory" vs "experiment" is the more common usage.
  - n4r9 8y ago
    I understand where you're coming from but I think a charitable (and perfectly reasonable) interpretation is that he's making a generic theory/practice distinction. I'd disagree that theory is something you can love since I strongly identify with this sentiment myself. I am not a practical man (as my wife is more than happy to vouch for), but I'm in love with ideas, concepts and abstractions. I love mulling them over and discussing them with like-minded people. It often doesn't matter much to me whether an idea has physical grounding or can be put into practice. > I want to start off by emphasising that I am not proposing to take sides on the propositions expressed in this book. I’m an intellectual. Ideas are my trade. Show me an idea and i’ll taste it. Belgians are foodies; my much-loved colleague Andre Petry lives out in the country. Once when I was staying with him the field opposite his house delivered overnight a vast harvest of a kind of particularly delicious toadstool called coprina comatus, a delicacy regrettably of incontestably phallic appearance known to English country people as Old man’s tool. Most people I have met express shock and horror at being asked to eat it. Not so Andre. No Belgian will allow anything to get in the way of a new taste experience. It is the same with me and ideas. https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/jaynes.pdf https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/jaynes.pdf

by opaque 8y ago

amelius 8y ago

But remember that the scientific method itself is defined by philosophers, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

You are confusing 'scientific theory' with the term 'theory', which is far looser, i.e. a system of ideas.

n4r9 8y ago

"Theory" is a much broader term than "scientific theory", which is what you're defining. For example, in mathematics you have the "theory of natural numbers", or in art you have the "anti-essentialist theory". These aren't required to be hypotheses about the real-world. Rather they are like frameworks or languages which enable us to discuss and explore complex structures.

opaque 8y ago
Perhaps I'm inclined to read it that way from working in physics, which is divided into theory and experiment. He also refers to 'experimentalists' in the preceding sentence, which adds to the effect. Also if you take the fully general meaning, it's so vague I don't understand how it's something you can 'love', but then maybe that's why I'm not a Philosopher. Edit: The author's work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Maudlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Maudlin is all on the Theoretical Physics / Philosophy boarder, in which "theory" vs "experiment" is the more common usage.
- n4r9 8y ago
  I understand where you're coming from but I think a charitable (and perfectly reasonable) interpretation is that he's making a generic theory/practice distinction. I'd disagree that theory is something you can love since I strongly identify with this sentiment myself. I am not a practical man (as my wife is more than happy to vouch for), but I'm in love with ideas, concepts and abstractions. I love mulling them over and discussing them with like-minded people. It often doesn't matter much to me whether an idea has physical grounding or can be put into practice. > I want to start off by emphasising that I am not proposing to take sides on the propositions expressed in this book. I’m an intellectual. Ideas are my trade. Show me an idea and i’ll taste it. Belgians are foodies; my much-loved colleague Andre Petry lives out in the country. Once when I was staying with him the field opposite his house delivered overnight a vast harvest of a kind of particularly delicious toadstool called coprina comatus, a delicacy regrettably of incontestably phallic appearance known to English country people as Old man’s tool. Most people I have met express shock and horror at being asked to eat it. Not so Andre. No Belgian will allow anything to get in the way of a new taste experience. It is the same with me and ideas. https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/jaynes.pdf https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/jaynes.pdf