From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: Proof of God's Existence
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:59:55 GMT

__________________

In article <1992Sep5.010621.11975@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep4.192427.19464@tamsun.tamu.edu> e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu  
|> (Michael Hand) writes:
|> > In article <1992Sep4.040504.3673@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu  
|> (Barry Merriman) writes:
|> >   >Why can't philosophers understand this simple proposition: 
|> >   >
|> >   >YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE THROUGH PURE 
|> >   >CONTEMPLATION.
|> > 
|> > Oh, everyone *understands* it: the issue is whether it's true.
|> 
|> > _______________________________________________________________________
|> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|> > Michael Hand                     phone (409)845-5660, fax (409)845-0458
|> > Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ, College Station TX 77843-4237 U.S.A.
|> 
|> Are you telling me there are philosophers that still expect to 
|> prove things through pure contemplation? I thought that went
|> out with 'I think, therefore I am'.


  If I can just jump in on this thread for a moment, I'd like to stick up for at
least some of those with a philosophic bent!  (And as an aside, I agree with
Bertrand Russell that Hegel, not Descartes, was probably the last person who was
really convinced that he could discover the universe's secrets and purpose from
his study).

|> Perhaps if philosophers would extend their experimental program beyond
|> mere thought experiments, they would make more progress. Of course
|> then, they would turn into scientists :-)

  But that's a bit unfair, isn't it?!
Philosophy shouldn't have an experimental program in the sense you use here.
Why should philosophy be considered as a sloppy, incomplete attempt at science?
It seems to me that the rigorous theories and corresponding research programs 
which you have implicitly labelled `science' represent the consolidation of the
kind of speculative thinking which I'd call `philosophical.' 
  Indeed, some of the most insightful philosophers have laid the groundwork 
for empirical investigations, which in turn have led to sound research
programs and theoretical rigour, i.e. what I think you're calling `science.' 
G.W.F. Leibniz is a good example.  Issac Newton is another.  I'd put William
James in as a third.
  Of course, we often refer to these three thinkers, by the names of the sciences
to which they contributed (i.e. Mathematician, Physicist, Psychologist), but at
the time they worked, they were speculative thinkers.
  In my view, philosophy should not be treated as an independent field of study,
but rather as a class of questions and issues associated with most, if not all,
fields of rational inquiry.  Questions about the domain, relevance, meaning, and
methods of a given science should be a viewed as a part of the field in question,
not as a messy relative of it.  Science needs  this sort ofspeculation and insight,
creativity and criticism to maintain its dynamism, and its applicability.


|> Barry Merriman
|> UCLA Dept. of Math
|> UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
|> barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

--------------

Loren King
Dep't of Political Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology