From: Enigl@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 29 1999 - 16:48:18 MDT
In a message dated 99-09-06 17:19:59 EDT, you write:
<< I suggest you stop making
>> this claim [that science is a subset of
>> philosophy].
>
>I have grounds: philosophy is about truth (some would put even more
>broadly), by definition. Sci. is about only _empirical_ truth >>
Science is NOT about "truth." It is a system that seeks to understand
nature. Science has NO "final truth." There are several "philosophies of
science" but science itself, is not a subset of philosophy, strictly
speaking.
Science uses philosophy as a tool -- mainly epistemology. There are two
epistemologies currently in favor: empiricism (Bacon, Hobbes, Gassendi,
Locke and Hume) and rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Popper and
Bartley).
Since the works of Sir Karl Popper have advanced rationalism, empiricism has
been on the decline in favor of rationalism. For instance, there are
virtually no empirical scientists left in Physics. Rationalist scientists
use empirical data to _test_, not _formulate_ their theories.
<<That, too, is translatable into empirical terms. If you want
to know the conditions of truth you have to know what the knower of truth
knows.>>
Fortunately science is not about truth nor about theories defined in
inductively reasoned empirical terms -- since Popper's writings. In fact,
your above quote is one of the reasons why Karl Popper advanced Rationalism
over Empiricism. And, Bartley made even more progress over Popper . . .
Pancritical Rationalism (a subset of Critical Rationalism by Bartley ) takes
first principles and takes (base or primary) assumptions totally out of the
equation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:20 MST