JS wrote:
"...I believe that the primary role of philosophy is conceptual analysis.
...The primary role of any science is to study some range of phenomena, and
conceptual analysis is essential for clarifying and refining the concepts in
that field.'' (01)
John,
This appears too simplified interpretation of philosopy and science. Ingvar
must be right in his description of the roles played by these two
fundamental field of human knowledge.
Following Aristotle's ideas, one good contemporary mind proposed to compare
Science, Mathematics and Philosophy (Logics, Semantics, Epistemology,
Ontology) in terms of several characteristics, useful now to remind: (02)
Reference class: material entities and relationships or concrete systems for
Science; Reality or the world, for Ontology (03)
Subject field, or Range: properties of things for Science; Universal range,
for Ontology (04)
Truth Type: Factual or Empirical, for Science; Existential (ontological),
for Ontology (05)
Method: Hypothesis, theory, experiment and observation, induction, for
science; postulation, scientific justification and validity, for Ontology (06)
Goals: general laws of nature and society, desciption, explanation and
prediction, for Science; finding universal principles and overall patterns
and structures and rationales in the world, for Ontology (07)
Roles: mastering human world views and basing scientific technologies, for
science; formulating general hypotheses and models and theories about the
world, as well as forging common concepts for sciences, for Ontology. (08)
Tools: Science employs Maths, Logic and Philosophy as its conceptual tools;
while Ontology uses Science, Maths and Logic as conceptual instruments. (09)
Thus, the conceptual analysis is not the only job of Philosophy; for Maths,
Logic, Semantics, and Science, all involved in this hard work.
To sum up.
The primary role of Ontology is to formulate the universal principles about
the things in the world, or general categories, rules, and laws of reality,
thus proposing the comprehensive schemas and consistent models of the
universe, while the secondary is to clarify or crystallize the common
concepts shared by all particular sciences or related branches of knowledge. (010)
Azamat Abdoullaev
http://www.eis.com.cy
Paphos, CYPRUS
Moscow, RUSSIA (011)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep (012)
> Ingvar,
>
> I agree with you on the following point:
>
> > 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.
>
> As I said in my previous note, I believe that the primary role
> of philosophy is conceptual analysis, which is essential to every
> area of knowledge from the most informal to the most highly
> sophisticated.
>
> The primary role of any science is to study some range of phenomena,
> and conceptual analysis is essential for clarifying and refining
> the concepts in that field. That stage is primarily philosophical,
> but it can be done by scientists, who have some training or at
> least some good intuition about philosophical matters.
>
> > First, both Plato and Aristotle were primarily metaphysicians,
> > even though this of course forced them to do conceptual analysis,
> > too.
>
> Their word for what they were doing is philosophy, which in those
> days included the sciences. Aristotle was, among other things,
> a logician, a linguist, a literary critic, a biologist, a physicist,
> a psychologist, an ethicist, and a political scientist.
>
> As evidence, professionals in each of those fields cite Aristotle
> as the founder or at least one of the founds of their subject.
> What he contributed to those fields was an analysis of the
> fundamental concepts.
>
> > I wouldn't call this view of John's a Peircean view.
>
> I never said that all my views were Peircean. By the way, CSP
> referred to Aristotle as a "great naturalist".
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|