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: Definition of science and of scientific method.
Message-ID: <816@klipper.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 17-Jul-87 07:09:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: klipper.816
Posted: Fri Jul 17 07:09:51 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 13:14:37 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 64

From several responses I understand I have not been clear in my article about
the difference between philosophy and science. I was *not* trying to say the
distinction existed in time or in persons: it is only a "logical" distinction.
Philosophy is something like "thinking without knowing how to think". This is
why all "science" before the Illumination (is that the English word for that
period) is philosophy. What I meant to say was, that philosophy is the only
thing which may come up with a prescript on how to think (including experi-
menting, etc.). People can skip this, and take some intuitive response to
philosophic questions (and one has to: how many people decided they were there
only after a long philosophic quest?), but that is a philosophic stand too.

	A problem for philosophy is, that as soon as someone doesn't think
	methodically, his exposition becomes philosophical. This fact isn't
	doing much good to the name of philosophy. This is also one of the
	reasons why several of the younger disciplines are very sensitive
	to the predicate "science", and are doing much to show they aren't
	"just philosophies" (esp. social sciences, psychology, etc.).

In article <6617@reed.UUCP> mojo@reed.UUCP (Eddie [Ex-Delivery Boy]) writes:
>In article <813@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:
>>5) Science starts (or: sciences start) from the results of the philosophers'
>>work (unhappily the philosophers aren't ready yet, so those results are
>>not as sure as they should be, and certainly not as sure as they are often
>>thought to be by non-philosophical scientists) exploring the world.

>I don't think _philosophers_ are a prerequisite for science.  While the
>scientific method itself presupposes a sort of pragmatic rationalist
>empiricism (hey, I can generate buzzwords! :-), I think this is in many
>ways the default state for the human mind.  Certainly people were
>trusting their senses, and to a lesser extent their reason, before the
>concept of philosophy was so much as a gleam in the eyes of Whatever Gods
>There Be.  And I would hazard a guess that the question "Why do I get
>burned when I stick my hand in the fire to pull out the mammoth steak I
>dropped" predated "Do I exist".

You are right. I wasn't clear.

>>6) The definition of "science", and of scientific method, is by its very
>>nature a philosophical, not a scientifical matter. Otherwise one would
>>get paradoxes like:

>Think so?  I think philosophy is much more prone than science to create
>paradoxes like the Occam's Razor one you cited.  But that could be opening
>a whole new can of worms.

As philosophers don't know how to think, they are very prone to getting
stuck in their thoughts. But are you trying to say this shows Occams razor
is part of science, or that the definition of scientific method in general
is part of science? If so, how does that follow, and if not, what do you
mean? [I may miss the "feeling" of your "Think so?", not being a native
English speaker]

>Anyway, Biep, thanks for condensing this whole thing.  I was catching
>fragments of it but not enough to follow the issues, really.

Well, I know how annoying it is not to be able to follow a seemingly
interesting discussion: it happens to me all the time. I have already been
pleading in this newsgroup for elementary expositions on the subjects
being discussed. Glad you liked my one.
-- 
						Biep.  (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
I utterly disagree with  everything  you are saying,  but I 
am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it.
							-- Voltaire