thirdin77

SO WHAT???? Do you suppose this to be of some relevance? You are still droning on about rights. At least one philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, has been consulted by a U.S. federal judge on the issue whether Creation Science is or not science (and if/not it should be taught in schools) in the McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education case in 1982. This was a case over what is and isn't consistent with the U.S. Constitution and Ruse's philosophically-derived criteria for what qualifies as science was used by the judge in deciding the case.

There's plenty more to be asked and said, but I'll say no more because you said so little.

Yes, you have guessed wrongly. And, the burden of proof is on you so uphold it instead of posting yet more condescending inanity.

Hugo Holbling

I'll post as i choose, unless told otherwise by the moderators. Your assertions hold little weight with me: claiming that philosophy should legislate for praxis elsewhere is the positive claim and you have made it; ergo, you have some work to do.

:banghead:

tk

Which authority does thirdin77 quote to substantiate his assertions that the words have been misused?

Gurdur

You're being remarkably ungracious and intemperately, inappropriately vicious.
The best philosophy consists of musings and their developments; it does not consist of gratuitous fallacious side-swipes at contributors.

Let's take a look at some of your other assertions:

No, actually, it's not in practice all that comprehensive at all.
It's owing to the failure of philosophy to be comprehensive that many disciplines have developed their own independent philosophical sub-schools; medicine and biology especially.

But most often fails to answer them, or go anywhere interesting doesn't rehash Socrates. There was a huge degree of stagnation in philosophy following Wittgenstein, who so comprehensively knocked many a fallacy over the head; philosophy's failure (as a discipline) results from the problem that many modern philosophers lack the training or wish to intergrate the results of the natural sciences into their works.

This means, 100 years after Darwin, that Dennett is still muchly a lone figure in philosophy; that the gorundbreaking resurrection of the doctrine of inherent capacities was done by Chomsky in a field outside of philosophy, namely linguistics; that neuropsychology using MRI, PET and SPET have answered questions (example, the cognitive handling of visual models) that philosophy simply got stuck on; that Alvin Plantinga is one of the more exciting figures in philosophy simply because philosohers as a whole can't answer him, only natural scientists can.

I could go on.

But often fails to even realise that many new fundamental concepts are out there, e.g. biological evolution.

No, most unfortunately, it doesn't do that anywhere near enough ---- which is why linguistics, medicine, biology and physics (among others) were forced to develop their own sub-schools for developing philosophy in relation to their concerns.

Utter nonsense. Medicine, mathematics, physics and biology are far more rigorous in self-analysis than modern philosophy is.

If only modern philosophy did do that.
It doesn't.
There are good reasons why medical ethics is now most often a sub-school of medicine and not of philosophy.

You seem to lack experience and exposure to the various disciplines.

Actually, you're wrong there; much of psychology actually isn't predicated on what you call "scientific realism", but also takes into account more nebulous philosophy such as free-will.

"Scientific realism" does not equal psychological determinism or absolute materialism

A peculiar ramble of yours, and one at odds with your own complaints about not being informative. You seem to have a massively erroneous conception regarding sociologists, BTW.

Clutch

thirdin77, I don't see why the original concern -- whether terms of art in philosophy, or any discipline, for that matter, are misused in wider discourse -- should require any of the theses about philosophy that you have gone on to assert.

Surely it is fair to point out that some terms of art are poorly served by the skewed usage they acquire. 'Begs the question' is an awkward and ham-fisted way of saying 'raises the question'; there's no reason for its use in this role, except that journalists and talking heads heard the phrase somewhere, once, and want to show how educated they are. But, first, this is hardly unique to philosophy: think about the literal meaning of 'quantum', and then ask just how confused the phrase 'quantum leap' is, when used to mean the biggest leap imaginable. And, second, the way in which these phrases are poorly served is mostly pedagogical. Ie, this makes it a pain to teach novices the basic vocabulary of a discipline, because they think they already know it; this becomes one more thing that they have positively to unlearn before they can learn what matters. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't a terribly serious problem, though.

As for philosophy in relation to other disciplines -- all I'll say is, don't confuse the institutional division of a university into departments for some deep carving of intellectual inquiry at its joints. You are certainly correct that philosophy is relentlessly self-critical, but so is any successful brand of inquiry. As important, moreover, are the critical tools imported from other areas. Philosophy contributes these to other disciplines, and benefits from importing them as well. The idea of philosophy as "above" other disciplines seems lifted straight out of the Republic -- and as Woody Allen suggests, it isn't so much the idea of the Philosopher-King that bugs people, as the way the philosopher has of clearing his throat and pointing to himself as he explains it.

[Edited to add: This may be redundant, since others have mentioned it, but: Why the vitriol towards people who have, after all, just tried to engage your question?]

Feather

:notworthy

Clutch

These are interesting claims, two of which are approximately true: that Chomsky revived an old debate about innateness, and that neuropsychology tells us more about how vision works than does philosophy.

The rest of these claims are not well-founded. Philosophy, in some sub-areas, may have stagnated in Oxbridge for a few years following Wittgenstein, indeed this mostly happened under his influence. For example, I don't think that the Ordinary Language movement covered British philosophy in glory, though it did embody some insights. But a great deal of excellent work in (eg) logic, in epistemology, in language pragmatics, and in the philosophy of science, went on elsewhere during this time; and work in the history of philosophy continued apace with little concern for Ludwig. In some respects it was the most productive philosophical period of the 20th century, with groundbreaking work by Quine, Kuhn, Kripke, Putnam and Marcus that is still highly influential.

Dennett is muchly a lone figure in philosophy for his non-academic cachet and sales figures, not for his interest in Darwin. Scads of philosophers are working on evolutionary explanations of ethics, emotion, and cognition; go to a library and try a search of Philosophers Index on CD-ROM.

And Alvin Plantinga is one of the more exciting figures in philosophy? Perhaps this was meant just as a revelation about your personal sense of excitement. Plantinga has had a few interesting ideas; I'd call him a philosopher of interest, though this would not be the case were he not a rare example of a genuinely talented philosopher who is a theist. But the claim that "philosohers as a whole can't answer him, only natural scientists can" is unusual; I am unaware of any such argument from Plantinga.

[edited for tone]

Gurdur

um, Feather, you make me blush and feel ashamed of myself.

I didn't spend enough time polishing it, and I was unfair in not taking note of people like Popper, Ayers, etc..

But thanks !

Gurdur

What is it with some people ? We can't discuss philosophy without turning it into an ego-contest ?

FYI, I actually possess more knowledge than you impute; now you tell me why I should have written a 20-page dissertation proving the fact.
You left out Popper, one of the most notable exceptions. Tsk tsk tsk.
Marcus ? Give me a break.

And none of them - of whom I'm aware - have yet reached Dennett's fame, while you simply reinforce my implied point about the empty-headed snobbery in many philosophical quarters.

He started off quite a few debates around the place. Even Quine admired him, apparently.

I just wonder, how come you don't know this or state it, despite your having so much more knowledge than me, as you take care to constantly imply.
Dearie me.

10 points for snobbery, 0 for epistemology, 0 for knowing your opponent.

Do try again, Clutch, but do be aware that snobbery - especially fallacious snobbery - does not constitute an adequate answer.

Gurdur

I'll also add, getting back slightly on-topic:

Unfortunately, that is exactly what it amounts to in practice.
thirdin77's claim about philosophy been above all else is simply disproven by the disciplinary breakdown, which I noteed to some extent and which Clutch simply evaded.

Sad but true; many other disciplines have undertaken their own (subordinate) philosophy programs.

I find that disingenuous, and not terribly honest, Clutch.

While I'm guilty of being unfair (to a degree only) to modern philosophy, my main contentions, to wit:

1. Philosophy can no longer be regarded as "above" the natural sciences (or even linguistics -), it is now a companion discipline,
   
2. It is often mired in its own ignorance of other disciplines, notably biology
   
3. The most exciting initiatives have come from people entering philosophy from other fields in practice (Habermas, ethics, form sociology; Singer, ethics, philosophy, with knowledge from more or less med ethics)
   
4. Philosophy as a discipline is still very much struggling to intergrate the new knowledge, where it actually attempts to do so.

and I'll add, Clutch, your having added gratuitous personal insults while evading my points, then editing out your insults way after the fact, is not at all impressive.