Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!botter!klipper!biep
From: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Do philosophers need defending?
Message-ID: <832@klipper.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 28-Jul-87 14:36:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: klipper.832
Posted: Tue Jul 28 14:36:45 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jul-87 01:21:50 EDT
References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> <67@thirdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Distribution: world
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 20
Keywords: empiricism science philosophy truth

In article <67@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>How about defining the scope of philosophy as the discovery of non-empirical
>truths and that of science as discovering empirical truths.  The pursuit of
>non-empirical truths would include definitions or studies of what an empirical
>truth is, how to arrive at empirical truths, as well as delineations of
>necessary forms of thought, proper modes of reasoning, etc..  In this
>definition, logic and mathematics would be under philosophy, while psychology,
>physics, and the like would be under science.

I would put psychology and physics under philosophy as long as there is not
a relatively large body of methodology (and perhaps theory?). I think
general usage agrees with me: physics used to be a part of philosophy
till the changes made by people like Galilei and Newton, and psychology
was a part of philosophy until 
stated his methods and theories. That's why sentences like "the field XXX
only slowly freed itself from philosophy" come from.
-- 
						Biep.  (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
	    General-purpose hardware is great! Now I can
	      change my mind without changing my brain!