From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:17:11 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug26.002202.14701@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

|> Hmmm....never heard of them. Apparently their foundational work
|> has not actually impacted the theory itself. In which case
|> I ask: so what? If the foundational work does not interact with the
|> original theory, it doesn't seem so important. Its merely added
|> trappings, to comfort those who need comforting.

This is perhaps a comment more on the scope of your reading than on
anything else.  I, like Mark, must concede that this is not my field,
though I have known pretty well some who play in that field (van
Fraassen for one, and I would also have mentioned Arthur Fine.  What
about John Earman?)  Most of these guys publish in both philosophy and
physics journals.  I wonder how many *physicists* can be said to have
"impacted [sic] the theory itself"  (mental image of a physicist
or philosopher falling from a tall building onto a theory:  splat!).

|>  
|> > >  It's the old "scientist vs philosopher" battle! "Scientists are
|> > >philosophically naive - a sorry sight." - "Bah, only somebody who
|> > >can't do anything worthwhile in science becomes a philosopher."
|> > >
|> > >  This whole shtick is an artifact of latter day specialization. Why not
|> > >give it a rest?
|> 
|> Sorry, I don't agree. Its much more fundamental than that. I think there
|> are serious flaws in the philosophical approach to knowing the universe. 
|> Once this became distinct from the scientific ways of knowing, science took
|> off, and philosophy, stuck with the useless ways, stagnated. 

|> I mean, get some perspective: science has exploded, expanded its 
|> understanding millions of fold over the past 300 rears. Philosophy
|> is still struggling with same old ill-posed questions, and philosophy
|> of science is simply riding on the coattails of the scientists, 
|> ruminating on their accomplishments with their inneffective digestive system.

This bespeaks a rather narrow grasp of anglo/american philosophy in
the 20th century.  Further, if you actually talked to one of these
philosophers I and others have mentioned I think you would find it quite
difficult to get agreement on your distinction between a scientific
way of knowing and some other way of knowing peculiar to philosophy.
Even Aristotle would have denied such a distinction -- and please
note (if you have read any, which I know Torkel denies doing) that
it is virtually impossible to separate out the real science in
Aristotle (and there is a lot of this) from the philosophy (epistemology
and metaphysics).  I don't think this has changed much.  A theoretical
scientist had better be something of a philosopher, and a philosopher
of science had better be something of a scientist.  What academic
departments these guys work in is largely immaterial.


|> If all philosophers of science retired tomorrow, no one would notice.
|> If all scientists did, quite the opposite.

Yeah?  Suppose all theoretical physicists retired tomorrow.  Who
would notice?  Similarly for mathematicians.  It doesn't follow that
none of these guys make essential contributions that eventually
find expression in empirical results.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech