Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!hubcap!steve
From: steve@hubcap.UUCP (Steve )
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method.
Message-ID: <322@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jul-87 09:15:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: hubcap.322
Posted: Mon Jul 20 09:15:29 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jul-87 04:24:00 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <2250@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 24
Summary: Why does it start or end?

In article <2250@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
> In article <813@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:
> >work (unhappily the philosophers aren't ready yet, ...
> 
> I think this view of philosophy is fundamentally backward.  Philosophy does
> not *start* with the kind of fundamental questions posed here.
> 
> Calculus provides a good example.  Calculus was originally developed using
> infinitesimals.

Once philosophy started, it continued; so where it started is somewhat
immaterial.  But the whole thing is cyclical - somebody tries something; it
gets criticized and some new things are developed ....  I agree that there
are fundamental elements of philosophy which start with "real life".  But
the nature of God does not seem to be the subject of this discussion.

You're right: calculus is a reasonable example: infinitesimals are back.
Also, limits came out by considering failings of the infinitesimal model.
But now there are lots of "limits," and each one gives you a bit different
system.
I think your confusing the model with "reality."  Science deals with models and
their predictions.  Philosophy seems to deal with how to view models in
light of the fact that Nature does as She darn well pleases - with or without
our understanding.