3 ms·
> philosophy has stricter standards, not looser, than the rest of science. Really? Which are those? To me it seems that philosophical standards for a sound mo
by harperlee 5y ago
> philosophy has stricter standards, not looser, than the rest of science.
Really? Which are those? To me it seems that philosophical standards for a sound model of reality are coherence and persuasiveness of its argumentation, whereas for science is experiment predictability. I’d say either science is stricter (because it requires prediction) or at least that we have a poset of standards (if you argue that science does not require coherence, and enables conflicting models as long as they enable to predict successfully) and neither can be called stricter.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago> Really? Which are those? The ones I named in the comment . > To me it seems that philosophical standards for a sound model of reality are coherence and persuasiveness of its argumentation Not really, no
- harperlee 5y agoThere are no standards named in your comment.
- JohnHaugeland 5y agoMaybe if you don't know who Brandom is shrugs If someone responds to a comment about CLRS by asking you where you learned something about algorithms, and you say "in the place I already named," and they say "you didn't name any algorithm papers," they may feel like they've won a comment argument, but they've lost the opportunity to learn Sometimes your opportunities are bounded by your willingness to look up what you've already been told without demanding to be hand held