|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:34 pm
A Lost Iguana Lady of Spain Well, I think it's certainly the case that philosophical methods can be fruitfully applied in other fields - particularly astrophysics or pure mathematics. The question is then, whether it should be considered philosophy of mathematics (to take mathematics as an example), or whether it should simply be considered a new specialised branch of mathematics. I'll approach this from another angle, the Philosophy of Science is not Science (the philo discusses the merits of the method and things like flaws in inductive logic; science is the application and requires no real knowledge of the philosophical principles). I would say that Philosophy of Mathematics is a subset of philosophical thought and not a field in mathematics. [Edit: Oh, the reason that there is overlap between philosophical thought and scienctific methods is that science was originally the Natural Philosophy, branching from the main tree] Well if we're talking about the origins of philsophy and science, philosophy of course originally meant any kind of cerebral study, such as what we know today to be philsophy, mathematics or theoretical science and derived from the idea that all knowledge could be obtained through thought alone, rather than experimentation and therefore was clearly defined by a set of methods. The meaning of the word philosophy has clearly shifted, and the question is exactly how and to what extent - although as I said before, this is just a debate over a semantic ambiguity and probably isn't worth pursuing. Maybe a more worthwhile question would be whether philosophy should be defined by a set of methods or by a set of questions?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:28 pm
Lady of Spain Well if we're talking about the origins of philsophy and science, philosophy of course originally meant any kind of cerebral study, such as what we know today to be philsophy, mathematics or theoretical science and derived from the idea that all knowledge could be obtained through thought alone, rather than experimentation and therefore was clearly defined by a set of methods. The meaning of the word philosophy has clearly shifted, and the question is exactly how and to what extent - although as I said before, this is just a debate over a semantic ambiguity and probably isn't worth pursuing. Maybe a more worthwhile question would be whether philosophy should be defined by a set of methods or by a set of questions? You can argue that philosophy is left with logical thought considering that science has taken the empricial means. That said, the domain of modern philosophical thought is the likes of epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, etc. You can say it is defined by both. If you try to limit a definition to either method or questions then I would then a counter example could be found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:05 pm
I can't be doing too badly, people in ED have been assuming I go to Harvard.
Why Harvard, I've no idea. Though it doesn't sound much like an insulting conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:34 pm
What the ********? I leave for a week and this topic degenerates into a discussion about science and philosophy.
Oh no wait, I've now traced the root and I had a hand in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foetus In Fetu Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:34 am
Foetus In Fetu What the ********? I leave for a week and this topic degenerates into a discussion about science and philosophy. Oh no wait, I've now traced the root and I had a hand in it. It's quite disconcerting when no yoghurt or pet rocks are involved...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:23 am
Invictus_88 I can't be doing too badly, people in ED have been assuming I go to Harvard.
Why Harvard, I've no idea. Though it doesn't sound much like an insulting conclusion. No one ever made that assumption about me. XD Actually, few people (by that I mean Brits) seem to have heard of my alma mater. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:31 am
A Lost Iguana Invictus_88 I can't be doing too badly, people in ED have been assuming I go to Harvard.
Why Harvard, I've no idea. Though it doesn't sound much like an insulting conclusion. No one ever made that assumption about me. XD Actually, few people (by that I mean Brits) seem to have heard of my alma mater. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:57 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:07 am
A Lost Iguana Lady of Spain Well if we're talking about the origins of philsophy and science, philosophy of course originally meant any kind of cerebral study, such as what we know today to be philsophy, mathematics or theoretical science and derived from the idea that all knowledge could be obtained through thought alone, rather than experimentation and therefore was clearly defined by a set of methods. The meaning of the word philosophy has clearly shifted, and the question is exactly how and to what extent - although as I said before, this is just a debate over a semantic ambiguity and probably isn't worth pursuing. Maybe a more worthwhile question would be whether philosophy should be defined by a set of methods or by a set of questions? You can argue that philosophy is left with logical thought considering that science has taken the empricial means. That said, the domain of modern philosophical thought is the likes of epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, etc. You can say it is defined by both. If you try to limit a definition to either method or questions then I would then a counter example could be found. Although I didn't trace this all the way back I'll just say that MY philosophy professor was also a logic professor and used many similar explanations in his classes. My friend however took a class where a professor used a lack of absolutes to say that the people in the TV could hear you and that you could justify ******. Mine was a man and his was a woman though... that might explain all. I did like the logical thought ideas in class. Somehow though I was the only person to realise immediately that "thou shalt not kill" is a very stupid statement because we need to kill to eat, etc... definitions of life and murder and killing ensued. PS: "Thou shalt not kill" was originall, "thou shalt not murder" in Hebrew/Aramic/whatever apparently, meaning that there was no help in defining murder leaving it a useless statment (murder is wrongful killing, ie: don't do it. How the hell does telling people "don't murder" helpful as a rule?) I could go into the definitions of herbicide, homocide, biocide, personcide, etc. as he explained it if anyone calls me on it... but I am lazy now and don't want to leave another stupid long post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:48 am
You stretched the page.
*death ray cyclops eye stare*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:36 pm
A Lost Iguana You stretched the page. *death ray cyclops eye stare* Hypocrite. I went to the trouble of editing it and everything. EDIT: Hah. Fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foetus In Fetu Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:41 am
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13277548Hurrah! Fame!
I've never spoken to that chap before, ever.
Bizarrely, I thought I was quite informal in my typing. In that nothing is affected, I type as I speak.
Still, a reputation for both progressiveness and articulacy must (I'm sure) be quite a rare one..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
