[FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science

[Steve Smith]

I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science... I know only of one specific person on the list who has a significantly alternate perspective. Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there are philosophical traditions which we are products of.   Most of us here are interested in the topics of mathematics, science, language, etc.  *because* we were exposed to these ideas and modes of thought from an early age and from many angles.  Even if we grew up in a household where there was a modicum of magical thinking and animism around us, the larger world, and most *any* practical-minded western family today is going to be acting and speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes. We got that way by being raised in a time and culture where that is how most people (try to) understand the world.   If were were trained in mathematics or the sciences, we were almost surely trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy. Most of us here are empiricists and rationalists, which roughly implies that we are logical positivists.   These are philosophical traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western tradition) is a method or system of organizing the human experience. Epistemology is the branch of (Western) Philosophy concerned with the nature and the limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is the branch concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world.  Science and Mathematics reside almost exclusively within Metaphysics and Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which touch on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and Ethics, but the meat is in the study of knowledge and the study of the world. Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise, explicit or implicit) seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings: Serious sounding talk about anything we don't understand is "Philosophy" and we either therefore hold it in awe or (more often) dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list), the same treatment is given to "Mathematics" and "Science" for approximately the same reasons. The "white males" who show up most notably throughout our history as the shapers of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science) were products of their social/cultural milieu and their personal failings in the realm of human and social equality, justice, etc.  do not necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them. Why can't we simply accept that most of us have a particular attachment and fondness for the empirical and rational subsets of philosophy and that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our experience and perhaps interest.   And *within* these subdomains of Philosophy, why can't we admit that our specific methods are derived from the more general ones of metaphysics, epistomology, and sometimes aesthetics and ethics?  For those who have experience/interest in other systems than Western Philosophy, I think similar things are true, with the most notable exception (in my observation) that empiricism and rationality do not play as central of a role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other traditions... It is outside the scope of this particular posting to go into the merits of Empiricism and Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge and experience except to say that this particular Choir (FRIAM members) who for the most part sings *only* in the keys of E and R to be squabbling as if some of us are in a completely different key when in fact, the only problem is that few if any of us have perfect pitch. - Steve I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride (stopping to clean my plugs, adjust my valves, synchronize my carburators, lubricate my chain, and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the way).

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org