>>It seems to me that philosophy has several special subject matters, such as
>>metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, logic, ethics, and "human nature."
>
>No, those are just course classifications. They are not subject matters
>the way the economy is a subject matter for economists or the behavior of
>fundamental quantities to physicists.
you don't think that issues such as "the nature of knowledge" is a subject
matter?
>The
>>way I've always seen philosophy is more _directional_, however: that is,
>>philosophy involves looking into propositions and theories more _deeply_,
>>to examine the premises, definitions, logic, and completeness.
>
>That's pretty vague.
It shouldn't be to someone who's studied philosophy. The philosophy of
economics (meta-economics?) examines the unexamined premises of economists
(hidden in their models & empirical work) while we can imagine that
"meta-economics" would itself require investigation.
>>>JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientistr What Is Good Method.
>>
>>JD They can tell them, but only a small number will listen.
>
>I was unclear. I meant: We _should_ not tell them. We have no special
>knowledge. No one appointed us the method police.
Philosophers have no special knowledge? then shut the departments down and
force their members to go to law school! is there no contribution that
philosophers have made?
_Of course_, no one appointed the philosophers as "method police" and I was
NOT arguing that they should be. What I was trying to say was that
philosophical insights can _help_ science and its interpretation. And as I
said:
>>scientists who reflect on their method (rather than cranking out
>>"science" following convention) are likely to be the better scientists.
scientists like Gould or Lewontin get some of the grist for their
reflections from philosophy, methodology. They don't conjure their
philosophical reflections from measuring snails, etc.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
