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 untilstated 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!