[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ingvar Johansson <ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:45:24 +0100
Message-id: <4732CCA4.3080803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John F. Sowa schrieb:
>  >Ingvar:
>  > I find it very odd to call Bohr's new model of the atom
>  > a conceptual analysis.  You are stretching the term
>  > 'conceptual analysis' far beyond its normal boundaries.
> What else would you call that process?  Bohr did not do any
> experimental work himself.  What he did was to reinterpret
> the data that other people had provided.  In the process,
> he formed (by abduction) a conceptual model of the atom,
> which he tested against other people's data.
>       (01)

The process can be called "conceptual construction", "hypothesis 
forming", "model building", or "abduction", but not "conceptual 
*analysis*". Why? Because an analysis presupposes the existence of what 
is analyzed.    (02)

> In any case, I didn't want to get bogged down in a terminological
> dispute.  But I would argue that the primary difference between
> philosophy and science (independent of professional credentials)
> is the proportion of conceptual analysis involved in the effort.
>       (03)

Our views are not far apart. I would say that the primary difference 
between philosophy and science is: "the proportion of conceptual *work* 
in the effort". This view implies that there is no gulf between science 
and philosophy, and that, therefore, overlap is natural.    (04)

Ingvar    (05)

> John
>       (06)

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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>