Pardon the incursion:
>>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?
****************
Your use of quotes gives you away, Jim. There have yet to be created,
amongst pragmatists and other schools, transhistorical, immediately given,
criteria for establishing knowledge claims. There is a long history of
argument about issues in the topics you list above but don't expect
agreement anytime soon.
>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.
********
Ad infinitum with the permanent possibility of dissensus. Disagreement as a
badge of honor...politics.
>>>JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientists 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?
*********
Better yet, shut down the law schools too. They have no special "insight"
into knowledge nor are they more virtuous than the rest of us. So why the
fuck we let them tell us how to live while they wear black [lovers of death
and power, them judges]. Actually, there are lots of folks trying to shut
down philosophy departments; better not let too many folks know there is no
god etc. Too many Socratic personality types running around will make it
hard for those with authoritarian personality disorder to tell the rest of
us how to live.
_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.
********
...interpretationS. Just look at the interminable debate over the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum theory. No sign of epistemic finality on the
horizon there. Multiply that type of intellectual controversy times 100,000
and you have "actually existing civilization".
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
******
Well, "where" do they get their grist for re-flection?
As John Wheeler says: "there's no accounting for differences in taste"
Ian
