My professors were very good and many of them were rather good people. My
comments on the discipline derive from years of total experience in it, notw
ith idiosyncrasies of my own education.
Some propositions are so obviosu taht they do not require support unless
reasons for doubt arise. Among these are that there is no single point to
philosophical study of science or any other human activity. It was you who
put forward the controversial, but to me uninteresting, claim that _the_
point of it was tp tell scientists what good science was.
For the rest, Jim, your misunderstandings are so perverse, systematic, and
willful that I have to conclude athtr this discussion should be ended; you
seem to have no interest in what I might be saying, but only to put the
worst construction on it and to make me out as a moron. It's too bad you
couldn't find a (former) professional philosopher of science to talk to who
had a brain.
--jks
>From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:6122] Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:42:12 -0800
>
>Justin wrote:
>>I am not sure what the point of the study of scientific method is,a nd I
>>am specially trained in it. There may not be a single point. I doubt if
>>there is.
>
>Perhaps you had the wrong professors (and given your complaints about them,
>that seems likely). But you don't present an argument for this proposition
>that can be either endorsed or rejected, so we don't know if it's valid or
>not.
>
>>But I am absolutely certain that philosophers have no insight denied to
>>scientists about what counts as good science. If the philosophers say,
>>good science must do X , nd the scientists say, sez who!, the scientists
>>should win.
>
>So you think that having insights from outside of one's discipline never
>helps? At least in economics, I know that knowing that ideology plays a
>role in each of the major research programs. So it helps to pay attention
>to such things, while philosophical reflection helps us to find the balance
>between abstract model-building and empiricism. I also think that examining
>epistemological discussions helps us avoid such views as dogmatism and
>indeterminism.
>
>In biology, it's clear that method (including ideology) plays a role: look
>at Dawkins vs. Gould. A little discussion of what's wrong with reductionism
>would help the former a lot. Levins & Lewontin apply a philosophical lever
>to pry out all sorts of important stuff in their DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST.
>They don't eschew philosophy at all.
>
>Even physics (the alleged king of the physical sciences), when it gets into
>speculative stuff like string theory or cosmology, could use some
>philosophical reflection, since the usual consensus is impossible to
>attain. Though THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE (by Bruce Greene) is quite revealing
>and even more brilliant, I think that it could have used some philosophical
>insight (such as concerning the relationships between parts and wholes or
>the nature of scientific inquiry) to make his exposition even clearer. The
>Lakatosian idea of competing research programs also seems to apply to the
>split between string theory and the "standard model," while Occam's Razor
>might decide the debate in favor of the former.
>
>I think it's better to have dialogue between different academic disciplines
>rather than to set them off in little overspecialized boxes (all made of
>ticky-tacky and they all look just the same). But even if the scientists
>insist on being positivistic jerks, those who study science can learn from
>philosophy, helping us choose which scientific theory or generalization is
>most valid. Unless we decide to be ruled by scientists, such insights from
>outside the scientific communities will be needed.
>
>>So, you tell us what's good economics. Don't wait for us to tell you.
>
>This is an absurd dichotomy (tell us/wait for us to tell you). Why can't
>there be dialogue?
>
>>That means it is up to you and your tenure committees. Sorry 'bout that.
>
>So you think that academia is beyond hope? Probably, but if one's only
>standards are those of the system, it leads to opportunism, cynicism, or
>worse.
>
>To paraphrase some dead old philosopher (who's likely to be ignored by
>analytical philosophers), unexamined research isn't worth doing. One of the
>reason why economics is bombarded by so much worthless research is because
>people do it simply to climb up the academic ladder rather than because
>they're genuinely interested in it.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
