From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:03:23 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug30.044437.19426@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

|> Im not a philosopher---I don't even play one on TV :-)
|> I'm a scientist. My knowledge of philosophy stems from 3 or 4 phil
|> courses I took as an undegrad, reading a lot of existential philosophy,

!!!!!  Yeah, that's real good for philosophy of science!

|> an occasional glance at books on the philosophical aspects of QM and 
|> Relativity, and whatever one absorbs in the course of learning science
|> 
|> As far as modern phil, I took a (senior level) course on theories
|> of personal identity. Much of the work presented there was modern
|> stuff (at least the last 30 years or so). I was thoroughly dissapointed
|> in their philosophical approach, by the way---the want to copy 
|> the gedanken exp style from physics, but the experiments they propose
|> as just a vague as the issues they are trying to clarify, unlike the
|> case in physics. (they propsoe all sorts of exotic brain transplants
|> and stuff to probe the nature of identity---but they have no way of
|> knowing the outcome of such procedures, so they seem to be probing their
|> own preconceptions...)

Well, there you have it!  You've just been exposed to the wrong stuff.

|> That taste of modern philosophy, which deals with a somewhat scientific
|> issue (personal identity), was plenty to convince me that philosophers 
|> have not learned their lessons since the "I think therefore I am" days.

Having had quite a bunch of philosophy of mind/personal identity stuff
myself in the past, it would never have occurred to me to think of this
(within that context) as a "scientific issue".  You are correct, of
course, that there are many scientific issues here.  I think that
things in this area are proceeding with a bit more success and interest
since "cognitive science" came on the scene.

|> By the way, I note that you are not a practicing philosopher either.
|> In fact, you seem to work on compiler development. I'm happy about
|> that, since we need good compilers more than we need philosophers.

Don't know about that last claim.  I think we need both, and it helps
if not too strict a line is drawn to mark the demarcation.

|> But this makes it easy for you to _talk_ about philosophy and science, as you
|> have no professional, personal stake in either. On the other hand, 

Yeah, but when I *was* a practicing philosopher I talked about it in
the same way -- and it didn't even prevent me from tenure and promotion.

|> I am a practicing scientist, and so the philosophy of science has
|> some coupling  to my work. 
|> 
|> You might be ticked off yourself if there were a bunch of "Philosophers of  
|> Compilation" spouting of about the philosophical aspects of compiler
|> design, the history of compilation, etc, etc, yet they had never written
|> or even compiled a program! Agreed?

Well, I'm afraid this may in fact happen.  I'm a bit surprised it
hasn't happened already.  If you are an academic you need some
field to mine for research and publications.  The philosophy of
computers appears to me to be a vast and untapped field.  (Note
that I do not say "philosophy of computation".  You will find
fewer people in such an area, and I think they would be pretty
competent technically.)

Look, I know exactly what ticks you off.  When I taught philosophy
of science classes (graduate and undergraduate) I used to say:
"Listen!  You *must* know some science.  You *must* take physics.
It's how the world works."  Usually when addressed to philosophy
students this had little effect (all that math and science is
really *hard*).  BUT, there are a bunch of very competent people
out there who *do* have the scientific background.  I had two
semesters of very high-powered chemistry and four semesters of
very respectable physics (through special relativity and introductory
QM), and additional reading and study by myself, and I *still*
felt I didn't have enough background to play the game at the level
it really needs to be played today.  When I sat down to read
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler I didn't have what it takes.  (I even
tried to get an education grant to spend a year in a physics
program getting the right stuff, but it didn't get funded.)
However, there really *are* philosophers of science who do have
the right background.  Don't condemn the entire field because of
your experience with *other* areas of philosphy and your encounters
with some duds.


-- 
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