Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!thirdi!sarge From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Do philosophers need defending? Message-ID: <67@thirdi.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-Jul-87 03:02:02 EDT Article-I.D.: thirdi.67 Posted: Sun Jul 26 03:02:02 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jul-87 20:47:18 EDT References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Distribution: world Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology Lines: 28 Keywords: empiricism science philosophy truth Summary: Philosophy as the study of non-empirical truths. In article <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes: >What I wanted to say was: philosophers have to work below the boundary of >methodical thought, as they have to *define* methodical thought. >I state that there is no criterium for "real philosophy", other than >"the reflective work which must be performed before any science can >begin". 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. If this definition were correct, then we could truly say that science is built on a philosophical foundation (or, as you imply, that philosophy is logically prior to science). -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge