3 ms·

I agree. Even though I think the comparison to physics doesn't fully found what you want to say. Physics is an empirical science with a rather neutral language

by WHA8m 4y ago

I agree. Even though I think the comparison to physics doesn't fully found what you want to say. Physics is an empirical science with a rather neutral language to communicate its content. Arguments (much more 'findings') can be translated to this language and be understood on their own. The language of philosophy isn't so clear (or it is, but everyone has their own). Therefore an argument might not be fully understood on its own. The author/ philosopher might have tried to do so, but eventually it is easier to understand an arguments if you know what the state of the art was back then. My point basically is, that this goes beyond 'motivation' - which is hard to illustrate if we look at physics for comparison. - Unrelated: What's better: "My point basically is, [...]" or "My point is basically, [...]". If I knew how to ask this, I'd google it.

orwin 4y ago
You know there is a field of philosophy that study languages and meta-languages. It is now tightly tied to linguistic (maybe because of Noam Chomsky) but you have still logicians who publish in philosophical papers on this subject. Not my cup of tea, but worth taking a look at.
- WHA8m 4y ago
  Yes I know. No one likes these guys /s I agree. As I've just stated in another comment, it's hard to say something with substance about philosophy in general. There are just a lot of different fields with individual axioms and scientific methods. That said, if these 'languages and meta-languages' fields would have found something viable (usage and usability), eg. a good tool to use, we would already use it.
  - orwin 4y ago
    I think they did, i've read an article about that with my previous job, when i was mostly working with EU and universities: they created a meta-language to convey ideas fast between scientists of different fields and talking different languages, but with a common culture. I dont' have the paper but i found this [0] which might refer to the paper i read. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332781241_Developing_a_meta-language_in_multidisciplinary_research_projects_the_case_study_of_READ-IT_Workshop_W14_Standing_on_the_Shoulders_of_Giants_Exploring_the_Intersection_of_Philosophy_and_HCI_at_CHI_201 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332781241_Developin...
prego_xo 4y ago
> Physics is an empirical science with a rather neutral language to communicate its content. Arguments (much more 'findings') can be translated to this language and be understood on their own. I agree, but it should be taken into account that much of philosophy is based on science (namely psychology/sociology) and a lot of ideas are discarded if they're missing some morsel of empirical evidence.
- WHA8m 4y ago
  I agree. [I overlooked the "much of" in your first sentence. This would have been my reply: Yes with limitations. As I implied there are more kind of sciences. Philosophy itself has very diverse fields which have their own sets of scientific methods. So it's hard to say something with substance about the general field of philosophy. The philosophy I was talking about is more compared to math than empirical evidence based sciences.]

by WHA8m 4y ago

orwin 4y ago

You know there is a field of philosophy that study languages and meta-languages. It is now tightly tied to linguistic (maybe because of Noam Chomsky) but you have still logicians who publish in philosophical papers on this subject. Not my cup of tea, but worth taking a look at.

WHA8m 4y ago
Yes I know. No one likes these guys /s I agree. As I've just stated in another comment, it's hard to say something with substance about philosophy in general. There are just a lot of different fields with individual axioms and scientific methods. That said, if these 'languages and meta-languages' fields would have found something viable (usage and usability), eg. a good tool to use, we would already use it.
- orwin 4y ago
  I think they did, i've read an article about that with my previous job, when i was mostly working with EU and universities: they created a meta-language to convey ideas fast between scientists of different fields and talking different languages, but with a common culture. I dont' have the paper but i found this [0] which might refer to the paper i read. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332781241_Developing_a_meta-language_in_multidisciplinary_research_projects_the_case_study_of_READ-IT_Workshop_W14_Standing_on_the_Shoulders_of_Giants_Exploring_the_Intersection_of_Philosophy_and_HCI_at_CHI_201 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332781241_Developin...

prego_xo 4y ago

> Physics is an empirical science with a rather neutral language to communicate its content. Arguments (much more 'findings') can be translated to this language and be understood on their own. I agree, but it should be taken into account that much of philosophy is based on science (namely psychology/sociology) and a lot of ideas are discarded if they're missing some morsel of empirical evidence.

WHA8m 4y ago
I agree. [I overlooked the "much of" in your first sentence. This would have been my reply: Yes with limitations. As I implied there are more kind of sciences. Philosophy itself has very diverse fields which have their own sets of scientific methods. So it's hard to say something with substance about the general field of philosophy. The philosophy I was talking about is more compared to math than empirical evidence based sciences.]