From: Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau)
Subject: Re: Natural Kinds (was re: Are all crows black?)
Followup-To: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.meta
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:03:51 GMT

In article <BxGnrx.wr@unx.sas.com> Gary Merrill writes:
> [Deleted for brevity]

Thanks for the reading suggestions, but, Gary, you are operating under
certain misunderstandings. 

First, some personal data. In cyberspace, one cannot tell where others
are physically. I'm not in North Carolina, but I do have access to
university libraries so your suggestions are not in vain. I also have
never seriously studied philosophy in an academic setting, so I must be
permitted certain lacunae, although I do not I think I suffer from one
that you think I do.

Notice we are not arguing about any substantive positions as yet, and
maybe we never will. Rather the question is who has most advanced the
philosophy of science. I have decided that from the standpoint of the
philosophers I most respect, I may be mistaken to bring the subject up.
The question "Is computer science a science?" may be more worth pursuing
than "What is a science?" On the other hand, for showing off my
learning, this discussion is fine.

It is my impression that the philosophy of science is a recent
speciality. For example, would you consider J. S. Mill or Hegel to be
philosophers of science? How about Einstein or Bohr, who both discussed
methodological questions a lot? Poincare and Mach do fall in the
speciality I want to consider, I think. (My knowledge of these writers
is almost exclusively through the secondary literature.) I consider
Wittgenstein's Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations to be of
importance, but not actually part of the field.

I consider these divisions so far to be of little importance, but I want
to see if we can locate some areas of agreement.

I am quite aware of the logical positivists, but have not actually read
Carnap, Nagel, or any other Vienna circle author. I have read Ayer, in
particular, his Language, Truth, and Logic. The reason I did not
mention them is that I assumed no philosopher took them seriously
anymore. Professors of philosophy may be another story.

Now for some points where I think you're definitely adopting
indefensible readings.

First off, some of the most important works of the philosophers I
mentioned were published before 20 years ago:

   Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

   Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

   Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations

I do not remember the exact dates of Lakatos' later essays on SRPs, but
they are close. Also, Feyerabend's Against Method was published in 1975.
So Gary, do you want to retract this:

>I mentioned the past 20 years because the people *you* mentioned were
>writing largely in this period.

More seriously, I also think you are mistaken to characterize these four as
being members of a school or as reacting against positivism. Popper's
the clearest case for your position, and even he is debatable. Did
Goedel react against the Vienna circle? How about the later
Wittgenstein? Kuhn's primary interest is not even philosophy, but
history. Important people in his heritage that are not nearly as
important for my others include Herbert Butterfield and A. Koyre.
Lakatos could be said to either have developed Popper's ideas or to have
reacted against them. Feyerabend can be said to have explicitly
applied some of Wittgenstein's later ideas.

Now you may not like any of these philosophers of science. You may even
want to consider the following work as being as prominent as any that I
have read: 

>	"Moderate Historicism and the Empirical Sense of
>	 'Good Science'" by G. H. Merrill

I can even see how you might to group them together to consider certain
theses about the relation between the history and the philosophy of
science. But if you do not adopt any closer reading than one that
considers these four as being part of the same school or tradition, or
as all reacting against positivism, you must forgive me for being
unpersuaded of any thesis you may advance.

                                Robert Vienneau
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.logic