8 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoIncorrect. 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 agoI don't understand what you mean.
- CuriouslyC 3y agoPhilosophers 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 agoI still don't understand your point. If you have some disagreement with certain philosophy of science writers, I can certainly understand, but my point is that philosophy is exactly the interplay of the deductive frameworks and the induction "in the trenches" as you say. The process of philosophy is the interplay between the to, as neither aspect of that dichotomy can be demonstrated it's own. Empiricism cannot be justified without a reason-based framework, and that deductive framework is by definition arbitrary, and needs to map to empirical findings.
- lisper 3y ago> Empiricism cannot be justified without a reason-based framework Yes, it can. Empiricism can be justified empirically: it just works better than anything else humans have yet come up with.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- scoofy 3y agoThe Black Swan problem (the problem of induction) prevents empiricism (induction) from being justified on its own. You end up with solipsism (turkey problem, grue problem, etc.)
- lisper 3y agoScience does not rely on induction. Yes, I know you can find many sources that say otherwise, but they are wrong. Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Implications/dp/014027541X https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Imp... especially chapter 7.
- ants_everywhere 3y agoThis is the basis of all superstition. Our crops were doing poorly, but then I burned a chicken and now they're doing well. Let's keep burning chickens. You have to have an explanation of what counts as a valid empirical relation. And that depends on a whole lot of things worked out by philosophers and scientists. Including, for example, that you can safely ignore correlations that can't have a basis in physical laws. Or that you can write certain symbols on a blackboard and compute the probability that your correlation is worth spending more time on.