As a well-known philosopher once said, any one who criticizes philosophy is a fellow philosopher. I can cite the reference if anyone cares.
Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sep 20, 2017 9:27 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Peirce’s Pragmati[ci]sm is actually a generalization of the logic of > experimental science to all of philosophy. Quite splendid, actually. > > > > By the way, the Feynman quote is really dumb, and it’s annoying that > people keep trotting it out as if it was sage. The reason birds can’t make > use of ornithology is they can’t read. Think how useful it would be for a > cuckoo host to be able to spend a few hours reading a text on egg > identification. Is the reason physicists can’t make use of philosophy of > science that they can’t think? I doubt anyone who cites this “aphorism” > would come to that conclusion. Bad metaphor. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven A > Smith > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:51 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia > > > > Tangentially on the topic of Philosophy v. Physics, in my review of > Dempster-Shaffer (to avoid making too stupid of misrepresentations on my > bumper-sticker) I was fascinated to find Raymond Smullyan's "Types of > Reasoners" reduced to formal logic (but also couched in natural language > explanations). > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic#Types_of_reasoners > > FWIW, I contend that *LOGIC* is used (critical to) in the natural sciences > but does not *arise from* them... it arises from Philosophy (Epistemology) > and is formalized in Mathematics and merely USED by Science. > > I don't know if someone already quoted Feynman on the topic: > "philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to > birds." > > I suspect that if birds had the type of consciousness that included > self-image/awareness and the abstractions of language, that *some* would at > least find ornithology *interesting* and might even find some practical > ways to apply what they learn from "the study of birds". But no, for the > first part it wouldn't make them better fliers, predators, foragers, > scavengers, etc. And most *good* Scientists I know don't know much about > or care about the larger roles of Epistemology and Metaphysics, which > *sometimes* leads them to believe they have answered the hard questions > outside of the bounds of Empirical Science *with* Empirical Science? Like > the "spherical cow", they just "assume away" the features that their > measurements and models don't/can't address (much less answer). > > Mumble, > - Steve > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
