Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blueskyboris · 10-06-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Nose

The title of this thread is provocative.

Can someone/anyone provide an example of the conquest of philosophy by science in the last, say, 100 years-- since about 1900!

Hugh Nose

I don't know whether this will fill the bill, but philosophers like Russell, and Quine, have advocated what Quine called a "naturalization" of philosophy, so that, for example, epistemological questions were converted into quasi-psychological or physiological questions. Hume, in the 18th century argued that since metaphysics was a dead end (which Hume argued in various places) that philosophers turn their attention to the "moral sciences" i.e. the social sciences, and try to do for them what Galileo, and Newton, did for the physical sciences. Establish them on a firm footing. And he even suggested that philosophers become moral scientists, just as he, Hume, was a moral scientist, i.e. an historian.

Of course, it has been philosophers who have suggested this, and this suggestion has been based on their belief that either there is no such thing as substantive a-priori knowledge, as in the case of Hume, or, as in the case of Russell and Quine, there there is really no demarcation between the a priori and the empirical. And, of course, that is really what is at issue.

Let's not forget the arguments over subjectivism versus objectivism.

kennethamy · 10-06-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueskyboris

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I don't know whether this will fill the bill, but philosophers like Russell, and Quine, have advocated what Quine called a "naturalization" of philosophy, so that, for example, epistemological questions were converted into quasi-psychological or physiological questions. Hume, in the 18th century argued that since metaphysics was a dead end (which Hume argued in various places) that philosophers turn their attention to the "moral sciences" i.e. the social sciences, and try to do for them what Galileo, and Newton, did for the physical sciences. Establish them on a firm footing. And he even suggested that philosophers become moral scientists, just as he, Hume, was a moral scientist, i.e. an historian.

Of course, it has been philosophers who have suggested this, and this suggestion has been based on their belief that either there is no such thing as substantive a-priori knowledge, as in the case of Hume, or, as in the case of Russell and Quine, there there is really no demarcation between the a priori and the empirical. And, of course, that is really what is at issue.

Let's not forget the arguments over subjectivism versus objectivism.

Why?

Blueskyboris · 10-06-2007, 07:57 AM

Because it is another major issue.

kennethamy · 10-06-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueskyboris

Because it is another major issue.

It is. But how is it relevant to the thread topic?

~M~ · 10-06-2007, 03:12 PM

Nah. Philosophy >science.

Blueskyboris · 10-06-2007, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Nah. Philosophy >science.

What do you mean? Philosophy is greater than science?

Zossima · 10-06-2007, 10:27 PM

I don't know that I can think of any really philosophical questions that science has come anywhere close to "answering." I also think that such a happening is utterly impossible. Say what you will about the non-overlapping magisteria argument -- I think it applies here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I don't know whether this will fill the bill, but philosophers like Russell, and Quine, have advocated what Quine called a "naturalization" of philosophy, so that, for example, epistemological questions were converted into quasi-psychological or physiological questions. Hume, in the 18th century argued that since metaphysics was a dead end (which Hume argued in various places) that philosophers turn their attention to the "moral sciences" i.e. the social sciences, and try to do for them what Galileo, and Newton, did for the physical sciences. Establish them on a firm footing.

But, of course, both cases of "naturalization" in philosophy were not examples of scientific strategies (which somehow supersede those of philosophy and render them obsolete), but of philosophical strategies which, for one reason or another, promoted the growth of scientific knowledge. Hume, Russell and Quine didn't establish anything on a firm footing, and they certainly didn't establish anything on a scientific footing (as if such a thing were possible!). What they did was to decide that philosophical questions either were not questions at all ("pseudoquestions") or that they were reducible to scientific ones. They made a non-scientific decision to do science -- fair enough, but that doesn't affect philosophy at all, it seems to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

The other is in the vein of Heidegger, where the realm of "mere" facts are dismissed in favor of the realm of the timeless ideal, which is, btw, absolutely useless.

Slightly off-topic, but this is way off. Heidegger would be right there with you in ridiculing timeless ideals.

kennethamy · 10-07-2007, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zossima

I don't know that I can think of any really philosophical questions that science has come anywhere close to "answering." I also think that such a happening is utterly impossible. Say what you will about the non-overlapping magisteria argument -- I think it applies here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I don't know whether this will fill the bill, but philosophers like Russell, and Quine, have advocated what Quine called a "naturalization" of philosophy, so that, for example, epistemological questions were converted into quasi-psychological or physiological questions. Hume, in the 18th century argued that since metaphysics was a dead end (which Hume argued in various places) that philosophers turn their attention to the "moral sciences" i.e. the social sciences, and try to do for them what Galileo, and Newton, did for the physical sciences. Establish them on a firm footing.

But, of course, both cases of "naturalization" in philosophy were not examples of scientific strategies (which somehow supersede those of philosophy and render them obsolete), but of philosophical strategies which, for one reason or another, promoted the growth of scientific knowledge. Hume, Russell and Quine didn't establish anything on a firm footing, and they certainly didn't establish anything on a scientific footing (as if such a thing were possible!). What they did was to decide that philosophical questions either were not questions at all ("pseudoquestions") or that they were reducible to scientific ones. They made a non-scientific decision to do science -- fair enough, but that doesn't affect philosophy at all, it seems to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

The other is in the vein of Heidegger, where the realm of "mere" facts are dismissed in favor of the realm of the timeless ideal, which is, btw, absolutely useless.

Slightly off-topic, but this is way off. Heidegger would be right there with you in ridiculing timeless ideals.

But if it could be shown that issues that were formerly discussed as philosophical could be transformed, without residue, into genuine scientific issues, what do you think that would mean? After all, exactly that happened with issues concerning space and time, and nowadays, philosophers of mind are insisting that the same can be accomplished.What if they are right?

Patricia Churchland has focused on the interface between neuroscience and philosophy. According to her, philosophers are increasingly realizing that to understand the mind one must understand the brain. She is associated with a school of thought called eliminativism or eliminative materialism, which argues that folk psychology concepts such as belief, free will, and consciousness will likely need to be revised as science understands more about the nature of brain function. She is also called a naturalist, because she thinks scientific research is the best basis for understanding the nature of the mind. Her recent work focuses also on neuroethics, and attempts to understand choice, responsibility and the basis of moral norms in terms of brain function, brain evolution, and brain-culture interactions. Wikipedia

Pragmatista · 10-07-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zossima

I don't know that I can think of any really philosophical questions that science has come anywhere close to "answering."

Give me a few examples of philosophical questions, with definitive answers.

Zossima · 10-07-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragmatista

Give me a few examples of philosophical questions, with definitive answers.

I don't know that I can do that. I also don't know why what I said in my previous post indicated to you that I thought I could.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2007, 07:57 AM	#33
Blueskyboris Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Inside a Cheeseburger Posts: 5,374	Because it is another major issue.

10-06-2007, 03:12 PM	#35
~M~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Toronto. Posts: 2,796	Nah. Philosophy >science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.