7 ms·

Philosophy is the birthplace of sciences, which is why most philosophers are dealing with some kind of metaphysics. Yes, there are some philosophers that contin

by scoofy 3y ago

Philosophy is the birthplace of sciences, which is why most philosophers are dealing with some kind of metaphysics. Yes, there are some philosophers that continue their work after developing it from a metaphysics into a physics, but that's sort of besides the point. The point of philosophy is to create the framework for empirical research. That you would deride Wittgenstein on a math/CS forum, when he is literally the person who thought up the concept of truth tables, seems quite egregious. Yes, Wittgenstein is one of the most frustrating philosophers to read (I know, I took a class on his work), but his impact on the development of computer science, as one of the main people trying to harness the logic of thought/language, seems obvious to me.

jll29 3y ago
Wittgenstein's discussion of what _all_ games have in common (nothing, really) led him to the notion of "family resemblances". Margaret Masterman, who was Wittgenstein's student in Cambridge, may have passed some of that on to her student Karen Spärck Jones -- later of TFIDF fame (Spärck Jones, 1972; [1]) --, and Karen's Ph.D. was on semantic clustering, which years later were published as a book [2]. Her husband Roger needham published a paper about the notion of a "clump" theory of meaning [3]. So it seems Wittgenstein put some precursor ideas to clustering (linkage?) out in the Cambridge air for others to pick up... [1] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb026526/full/html https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb026526... [2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/22908 https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/22908 [3] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=3170a730e21d1b8c3f3d8da93b1601e324e3a109 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...
lisper 3y ago
> Philosophy is the birthplace of sciences Sure, just as alchemy is the birthplace of chemistry. That doesn't mean we should still be studying alchemy for anything other than its historical significance.
- scoofy 3y ago
  No, this is an incorrect assessment. You have framed it as post hoc, but the point is that the philosophy is the development of ideas like, say, atomic theory in chemistry, or germ theory in medicine. Theories that define the framework for study. New sciences happen very infrequently, but they happen, and when they do, they are typically created in philosophy departments. Computer science is the most recent, which came in large part from philosophy departments. Before that was psychology. Alchemy is exactly a framework-free type of empiricism. The point of philosophy, and philosophy that happens in other sciences, is that we live inside of a model, and we interact with that model, and change the model while we are doing empirical research using the rules of the model. This is a type of reflexive framework development, where metaphysical ideas become obvious physics as people propose changes to the standard model we use. This dance between induction and deduction is exactly the field of philosophy.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    Incorrect. Philosophers write about, "organize" and "codify" what people are doing in the trenches from trial and error. To say that the philosophers created the science is like saying that by dressing a man in a suit they have created life.
    - scoofy 3y ago
      I don't understand what you mean.
      - CuriouslyC 3y ago
        Philosophers of science have given us some axiomatic statements about the nature of deduction and the limits of inquiry, but research is a trade far more nuanced than a philosophical framework, with cultural transmission of domain specific problem solving strategies and learned intuitive guides. Those things are inherently a-philosophical, and also probably the most important of all.
        scoofy 3y ago
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Just like we shouldn't study history, because it is in the past?
GrumpySloth 3y ago
> That you would deride Wittgenstein on a math/CS forum, when he is literally the person who thought up the concept of truth tables, seems quite egregious. That would be Charles Peirce, in the XIXth century, not Wittgenstein.
- hollerith 3y ago
  Also, his philosophical works might be bad even if he had invented truth tables: it's not like the truth table was hard to find the way, e.g., Newtonian mechanics was.
- scoofy 3y ago
  Peirce, apparently, did develop a equivalent form of truth table earlier, but it would be misunderstand the history of computer science to attribute them to Peirce. Just because someone had the idea first, doesn't mean that work is the source of the idea going forward. I think it's pretty clear that Wittgenstein's truth tables are those that guided the development of computer science. >In a manuscript of 1893, in the context of his study of the truth-functional analysis of propositions and proofs and his continuing efforts at defining and understanding the nature of logical inference, and against the background of his mathematical work in matrix theory in algebra, Charles Peirce presented a truth table which displayed in matrix form the definition of his most fundamental connective, that of illation, which is equivalent to the truth-functional definition of material implication. Peirce’s matrix is exactly equivalent to that for material implication discovered by Shosky that is attributable to Bertrand Russell and has been dated as originating in 1912. Thus, Peirce’s table of 1893 may be considered to be the earliest known instance of a truth table device in the familiar form which is attributable to an identifiable author, and antedates not only the tables of Post, Wittgenstein, and Łukasiewicz of 1920-22, but Russell’s table of 1912 and also Peirce’s previously identified tables for trivalent logic tracable to 1902. PDF of Anellis's paper: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.2429.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.2429.pdf >But even if that conclusion is challenged, it is now clear that Russell understood and used the truth-table technique and the truth-table device. By 1910, Russell had already demonstrated a well-documented understanding of the truth-table technique in his work on Principia Mathematica. Now, it would seem that by 1912, and surely by 1914, Russell understood, and used, the truth-table device. Of course, the combination of logical conception and logical engineering by Russell in his use of truth tables is the culmination of work by Boole and Frege, who were closely studied by Russell. Wittgenstein and Post still deserve recognition for realizing the value and power of the truth-table device. But Russell also deserves some recognition on this topic, as part of this pantheon of logicians. >In this paper I have shown that neither the truth-table technique nor the truth-table device was "invented" by Wittgenstein or Post in 1921-22. The truth-table technique may originally be a product of Philo's mind, but it was clearly in use by Boole, Frege, and Whitehead and Russell. The truth-table device is found in use by Wittgenstein in 1912, perhaps with some collaboration from Russell. Russell used the truth-table technique at Harvard in 1914 and in London in 1918. So the truth-table technique and the truth-table device both predate the early 1920s. PDF of Shosky's relevant paper: https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/russelljournal/article/download/1912/1938/0 https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/russelljournal/article/download...
mistermann 3y ago
> That you would deride Wittgenstein on a math/CS forum, when he is literally the person who thought up the concept of truth tables, seems quite egregious. For extra lulz you should ask him about which of the many meanings of the word "is" he is using here, for each instance of the word: > That's because a lot of philosophy is eminently pooh-pooh-able. Of all places, you'd think people on a hacker forum would know the difference between is and equals.

by scoofy 3y ago

jll29 3y ago

Wittgenstein's discussion of what _all_ games have in common (nothing, really) led him to the notion of "family resemblances". Margaret Masterman, who was Wittgenstein's student in Cambridge, may have passed some of that on to her student Karen Spärck Jones -- later of TFIDF fame (Spärck Jones, 1972; [1]) --, and Karen's Ph.D. was on semantic clustering, which years later were published as a book [2]. Her husband Roger needham published a paper about the notion of a "clump" theory of meaning [3]. So it seems Wittgenstein put some precursor ideas to clustering (linkage?) out in the Cambridge air for others to pick up... [1] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb026526/full/html https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb026526... [2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/22908 https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/22908 [3] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=3170a730e21d1b8c3f3d8da93b1601e324e3a109 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...

lisper 3y ago

> Philosophy is the birthplace of sciences Sure, just as alchemy is the birthplace of chemistry. That doesn't mean we should still be studying alchemy for anything other than its historical significance.

scoofy 3y ago
No, this is an incorrect assessment. You have framed it as post hoc, but the point is that the philosophy is the development of ideas like, say, atomic theory in chemistry, or germ theory in medicine. Theories that define the framework for study. New sciences happen very infrequently, but they happen, and when they do, they are typically created in philosophy departments. Computer science is the most recent, which came in large part from philosophy departments. Before that was psychology. Alchemy is exactly a framework-free type of empiricism. The point of philosophy, and philosophy that happens in other sciences, is that we live inside of a model, and we interact with that model, and change the model while we are doing empirical research using the rules of the model. This is a type of reflexive framework development, where metaphysical ideas become obvious physics as people propose changes to the standard model we use. This dance between induction and deduction is exactly the field of philosophy.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  Incorrect. Philosophers write about, "organize" and "codify" what people are doing in the trenches from trial and error. To say that the philosophers created the science is like saying that by dressing a man in a suit they have created life.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    I don't understand what you mean.
    - CuriouslyC 3y ago
      Philosophers of science have given us some axiomatic statements about the nature of deduction and the limits of inquiry, but research is a trade far more nuanced than a philosophical framework, with cultural transmission of domain specific problem solving strategies and learned intuitive guides. Those things are inherently a-philosophical, and also probably the most important of all.
      - scoofy 3y ago
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Just like we shouldn't study history, because it is in the past?

GrumpySloth 3y ago

> That you would deride Wittgenstein on a math/CS forum, when he is literally the person who thought up the concept of truth tables, seems quite egregious. That would be Charles Peirce, in the XIXth century, not Wittgenstein.

hollerith 3y ago
Also, his philosophical works might be bad even if he had invented truth tables: it's not like the truth table was hard to find the way, e.g., Newtonian mechanics was.
scoofy 3y ago
Peirce, apparently, did develop a equivalent form of truth table earlier, but it would be misunderstand the history of computer science to attribute them to Peirce. Just because someone had the idea first, doesn't mean that work is the source of the idea going forward. I think it's pretty clear that Wittgenstein's truth tables are those that guided the development of computer science. >In a manuscript of 1893, in the context of his study of the truth-functional analysis of propositions and proofs and his continuing efforts at defining and understanding the nature of logical inference, and against the background of his mathematical work in matrix theory in algebra, Charles Peirce presented a truth table which displayed in matrix form the definition of his most fundamental connective, that of illation, which is equivalent to the truth-functional definition of material implication. Peirce’s matrix is exactly equivalent to that for material implication discovered by Shosky that is attributable to Bertrand Russell and has been dated as originating in 1912. Thus, Peirce’s table of 1893 may be considered to be the earliest known instance of a truth table device in the familiar form which is attributable to an identifiable author, and antedates not only the tables of Post, Wittgenstein, and Łukasiewicz of 1920-22, but Russell’s table of 1912 and also Peirce’s previously identified tables for trivalent logic tracable to 1902. PDF of Anellis's paper: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.2429.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.2429.pdf >But even if that conclusion is challenged, it is now clear that Russell understood and used the truth-table technique and the truth-table device. By 1910, Russell had already demonstrated a well-documented understanding of the truth-table technique in his work on Principia Mathematica. Now, it would seem that by 1912, and surely by 1914, Russell understood, and used, the truth-table device. Of course, the combination of logical conception and logical engineering by Russell in his use of truth tables is the culmination of work by Boole and Frege, who were closely studied by Russell. Wittgenstein and Post still deserve recognition for realizing the value and power of the truth-table device. But Russell also deserves some recognition on this topic, as part of this pantheon of logicians. >In this paper I have shown that neither the truth-table technique nor the truth-table device was "invented" by Wittgenstein or Post in 1921-22. The truth-table technique may originally be a product of Philo's mind, but it was clearly in use by Boole, Frege, and Whitehead and Russell. The truth-table device is found in use by Wittgenstein in 1912, perhaps with some collaboration from Russell. Russell used the truth-table technique at Harvard in 1914 and in London in 1918. So the truth-table technique and the truth-table device both predate the early 1920s. PDF of Shosky's relevant paper: https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/russelljournal/article/download/1912/1938/0 https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/russelljournal/article/download...

mistermann 3y ago

> That you would deride Wittgenstein on a math/CS forum, when he is literally the person who thought up the concept of truth tables, seems quite egregious. For extra lulz you should ask him about which of the many meanings of the word "is" he is using here, for each instance of the word: > That's because a lot of philosophy is eminently pooh-pooh-able. Of all places, you'd think people on a hacker forum would know the difference between is and equals.