I think that this thread should expire.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 06:47:58PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/15/00 11:28PM
Again, the reality is quite the opposite. Plato has Sokrates
contend that only a philosophic, not an aristocratic, elite would
rule in the "best"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/15/00 11:28PM
Again, the reality is quite the opposite. Plato has Sokrates
contend that only a philosophic, not an aristocratic, elite would
rule in the "best" city. An aristocratic elite is defined by descent
and hereditary privilege. The Sokratic/Platonic philosophic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/14/00 07:02PM
Justin:
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.
I
And this has what to do with whether philosophers have special knowledge of
scientific method? --jks
Anyway, I think that philosophers can do everything they ever could; only,
they cannot set the bounds to knowledge or presume to dictate to scientists
what the scientists may do as far as
Hey the sentence of yours below that I riffed on doesn't say squat about
scientific method; which as you said can't be fully explicated anyway even
if there is one. The "fact" is that law is a manifestation of philosophical
discourse that merely happens to be backed up with guns. Surely you don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/14/00 07:39PM
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.
((
CB: Turns out Socrates and Plato supported the dictators/authoritarians
It just seemed like you were saying that Socratic types, Platonists, idealists were
opponents of authoritarians, a free spirit image that a lot academic types like to
project, but which is the opposite of the facts.
CB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/15/00 03:49PM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/14/00
It just seemed like you were saying that Socratic types,
Platonists, idealists were opponents of authoritarians, a free
spirit image that a lot academic types like to project, but which
is the opposite of the facts.
CB
Well, apologies for the muddle and, to be fair, my
-
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 3:17 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6233] RE: analytical philosophy
It just seemed like you were saying that Socratic types, Platonists,
idealists were opponents of authoritarians, a free spirit image that a lot
Ken Hanly wrote:
Well if the stories are correct, Socrates accepted the death sentence of a
democratic regime and argued at great length that it would be wrong for him
not to accept the penalty.. He disobeyed orders from both a democratic and
an oligarchic regime when his little voice told
-
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:23 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6256] Re: Re: RE: analytical philosophy
Ken Hanly wrote:
Well if the stories are correct, Socrates accepted the death sentence of
a
democratic regime and argued at great
Ken Hanly wrote:
Seems to me you are to a considerable extent confusing Socrates with Plato.
I'll think over the rest of your post before responding to it,
but this calls for some brief separate comment. For all practical
purposes, Socrates is a fictional creation of Plato's. So I am not
Carrol Cox writes in denunciation of Sokrates and Platon:
Well, he [Sokrates] hobnobbed with one of the sleaziest bunch of
rich young terrorists that a democracy ever produced --
the 30 tyrants
You "forget" to mention Sokrates' defiance of the Thirty when he was
ordered to arrest Leon of
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
At 05:24 PM 12/14/00 +, you wrote:
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,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:33:36 -0800
At 05:24 PM 12/14/00 +, you wrote:
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 scie
please unsubscribe me.
At 07:22 PM 12/14/00 +, you wrote:
Of course philosophy has a reason to be interested in science. Of course I
do not think that disciplines should be hermetically sealed off from each
other. Of course I think that social scientists should discuss how to do
social science with philosophers
but you said that "there is no single point to philosophical study of
science or any other human activity." Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning
of "single" here, so that what you're saying is that there are _many_
points to the philosophical study of science.
That's right.
It seems to me that
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
Justin:
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.
I think you're right, but philosophers
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
: analytical philosophy
Justin:
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.
I think you're
I would not speak for philosophers in general. I wouldn't be confident that
even Anglo-American philosophers have all or mostly given up their Method
Police badges. I am speaking for myself, and for an approach I picked up in
no small part from Rorty; it was pretty common at the places where I
Well for many analytical philosophers interested in the philosophy of
science it is a type of conceptual analysis. What is a law in
science? What
is the subject matter of psychology? Mental events? What are they?
Happenings in the brain etc..etc. Nothing at all, like
phlogiston? What is a
Anyway, I think that philosophers can do everything they ever could; only,
they cannot set the bounds to knowledge or presume to dictate to scientists
what the scientists may do as far as science goes.
--jks
**
Better to leave that to the lawyers in the [in]Justice dept., the DEA, the
FBI,
- Original Message -
From: Lisa Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6170] RE: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
Well for many analytical philosophers interested in the philosophy of
science it is a type of conceptual
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/00 02:28PM
Would it also exclude my brother the philosophy professor, who's into
"natural law"? BTW, he's also very logical, given his premises.
CB: That's natural, because law focuses on formal logic ( of which non-contradiction
is the first
Perhaps "AP" can be _defined_ as the rejection of discussions of "method"
(i.e., how logical analysis and empirical study should be combined to
answer moral, empirical, and other questions)? So issues like the debate
between Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, and others who study the philosophy of
science
I wrote:
Perhaps "AP" can be _defined_ as the rejection of discussions of "method"
Justin writes:
No, the anti-method thing is more of a pragmatist trope than a general AP
thing. I, predictly, do not believe there is any such thing as "scientific
method," and as someone trained in philosophy
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. But I am absolutely certain that philosophers have no insight denied to
scientists about what counts as good science. If the philosophers
is a Wittgensteinian.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:28 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6113] Re: Re: analytical philosophy
I wrote:
Perhaps "AP" can be _defined_ as the rejection of d
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
Jim Devine wrote:
To paraphrase some dead old philosopher (who's likely to be ignored by
analytical philosophers), unexamined research isn't worth doing.
I'll be damned. You put some legitimate zing into a proposition
that in the original was pretty vicious. To say the unexamined *life*
is
34 matches
Mail list logo
