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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
Many analytical philosophers have been interested in the philosophy of
science. Often they are interested in analysis of scientific concepts both
in psychology and physical sciences. Norman Malcolm for example argued at
great length with Skinner re Behaviorism. Ryle's Concept of Mind on the
other
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
