Wacek Kusnierczyk schrieb:
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> In any case, the primary role of philosophy is not to
>> accumulate facts and theories, as in science, but to develop
>> methods of conceptual analysis. For that purpose, it's hard
>> to find more instructive examples than the writings of Plato
>> and Aristotle.
>>
>>
>>
> well, if aristotle's grounds to make the general claim that women have
> fewer teeth than men was an observation of *one* man (and at least one
> woman, i guess), then it is not the best example of how to do science.
> perhaps it is a good example of how philosophers do their work (i hope not).
>
> vQ
> (01)
There are four main views on how to regard the relationship between
philosophy and the sciences. I think that careful reflection on the
history of philosophy and of science shows that one should opt for the
fourth alternative below. (02)
(1) In the history of philosophy, some philosophers have placed
philosophy *above* science, claiming not only that all philosophical
problems can be solved independently of the sciences, but also that
empirical science has to stay within a framework discovered by
philosophy alone. This is true of Kant and of pure rationalists such as
Descartes and Hegel. (03)
(2) Other philosophers, especially logical positivists, have placed
philosophy *below* science, claiming that, in relation to the sciences,
philosophy can only contribute by sharpening the conceptual tools that
scientists are using when they try to capture the structure of the world. (04)
(3) In both the cases above, philosophy is looked upon as being of some
relevance for the sciences, but there are also philosophers who claim
that philosophy is of *no relevance* whatsoever for the sciences. For
instance, the self-proclaimed epistemological anarchist Paul Feyerabend
would be happy to agree to what the famous physicist Richard Feynman is
reported to have said: ‘Philosophy of science is about as useful to
scientists as ornithology is to birds’. (05)
(4) All the three views above make philosophy sovereign over its own
domain, and all of them except the Descartes-Kant-Hegel view (1) makes
science sovereign over its domain, too. My view is different. I think
that science and philosophy are somewhat *overlapping* disciplines that
can benefit from interaction. When science and philosophy is not in
reflective equilibrium one of them, if not both, has to be changed, but
there is no meta-rule that tells us what ought to be changed. (06)
Best wishes,
Ingvar (07)
PS(a). I am doubly surprised over John's statement above. First, both
Plato and Aristotle were primarily metaphysicians, even though this of
course forced them to do conceptual analysis, too. Second, I wouldn't
call this view of John's a Peircean view. (08)
PS(b). Wacek's condemnation of Aristotle is simply silly. Aristotle is
generally regarded as the founding father of taxonomy. He had been the
teacher of Alexander the Great, and when Alexander went out to conquer
Asia and Africa, unknown flowers were sent back to Aristotle. Aristotle
was a very empirical-minded philosopher; some mistakes notwithstanding. (09)
--
Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|