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)
|