From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Dec 27 2000 - 07:56:11 MST
On Friday, December 22, 2000 12:41 PM Steve Nichols steve@multisell.com
wrote:
> >How do you know?
> >If you want to resist philosophy, then stop thinking about that question
> >right now, you'd need philosophical concepts to answer it.
>
> No I don't, just clear thinking ... no philosophical training needed!
Actually, this is akin to saying you need a degree to do science. You don't
need to be trained to do philosophy. It might help, if the training is
good, but it might hinder if you are just taught bad methods and work from
flawed foundations. However, this is no argument against philosophy or
philosophizing.
> >Isn't logic a subset of philosophy? It was in the philosophy department
at
> >my college. I'm sure you know Russell was an academic philosopher.
>
> Maybe it was, but academic philosophers would like to think that
> every academic pursuit is a subset of philosophy! Russell was a CND
> campaigner, I suppose that makes him a politician as well ... and he
> started out as a mathematician .... I am not sure labels are that helpful.
Again, we come back to defining philosophy. I've offered my working
defintion. What's yours?
> >Philosophy suffers the same problem AI does. Once you solve the problem,
> >it's not considered philosophy anymore.
>
> What solved problems do you have in mind here?
I disagree with the claim that solved problems are no longer philosophy. I
also disagree that philosophical problems are insoluble. I think what does
happen, however, is that the areas where problems are solved become less
glamorous, but this is the same with any field. A lot more mathematicians
today are busy working on nonlinear dynamics than are working on, say,
euclidean geometry. Does this make euclidean geometry less a part of math?
As for actual solved problems in philosophy, I tend to think the idea of God
has been refuted at every turn. That's one issue down.:)
> Most academic research runs on a much tighter timescale ... are you sure
> that the "appropriate department" or even the Institution itself will
still
> be
> around to benefit from these breakthroughs from the Philosophy department
> after 1,000's of years?
What about Mills' Methods [of Induction] or Popper's method of
falsification? These have definitely proved helpful in science, especially
by helping focus attention on stuff that was previously implied in a lot of
research. This is not to say a lot or most philosophy is garbage, but some
is useful. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater...
> You are correct in pointing out that philosophy is fertilizer!!!!! Utter
> bullshit.
Can you give examples? There are bad philosophers and bad philosophies, in
the sense that they don't work. But this is no different than there being
pseudoscience. Pseudoscience does not make valid science a sham, but it
does mean we have to be on guard, that having a PhD or heading up an
institute does not make one right or honest.
> >The first debates about atoms were held among philosophers in
> >Ancient Greece. Pythagora (spelling?), who discovered the Pythagorean
> >theorem and many other facts about numbers, had a cult of philosophy
> >students whose behavior was in some respects more bizarre then the
Heaven's
> >Gate castration comet suicide cult.
>
> Pythagorean magicians might dispute your claiming of Pythagoras for
> academic philosophy .....
This comes done to defining philosophy again. Ancient Greece was the first
place where philosophy was separated from religion. So one would expect a
lot of progress, but a lot of old doctrines sticking to the new way of
thinking.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
My "Rand the Libertarian," published in the current issue of _The Thought_,
is now up viewable on the web at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/RandLib.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:33 MST