Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!eagle!rjf
From: rjf@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Do philosophers need defending?
Message-ID: <3227@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24-Jul-87 09:14:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: eagle.3227
Posted: Fri Jul 24 09:14:05 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 18:07:16 EDT
References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: rjf@ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney)
Distribution: world
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 71

Summary:

Expires:

Sender:

Followup-To:


In article <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:
>[Warning: I am not a native speaker of English, and recent history shows
>I do have difficulties in conveying ideas of a more abstract nature]

OK, but..

>Now I would wish more people dug into the philosophical basis
>of that methodology, so that they would become a little less confident in
>yelling "it's scientifically proven!".

Does this mean 'significantly less confident in a significant number of
cases'? If so, it seems to me obviously false. If not, why say it?

>If I had a grudge against philosophy...

Didn't (seriously, (like I said)) think you did.
Just a misconceived view of it.

>I only pointed out, that when the line of methodology
>is crossed, one enters the realm of science, and leaves philosophy (as one
>has stopped reflecting (is that the right word?) and starts thinking..

I hope that is not the right word. To say philosophers reflect but do not
think is tantamount to saying they are not logical. Philosophers certainly
think, more carefully and logically than those of any other discipline.

>there is no philosophical methodology (there can't be: how would
>that methodology be justified? By itself?)..

Your assumption here is that philosophy is some sort of monolithic precursor
to everything else. Precursor it may be (though obviously not in the temporal
sense, as you say yourself), but not for everything, and it's certainly not
monolithic. It is not a universal precursor, because it deals purely with
theory, and some things are essentially practical. (I'd say one of these is
science, but I'm not going to argue that here.) And the fact that philosophy
has different subject areas, as you note, means that the *methodology* of
one area can be based on the findings of another. To suggest that philosophy
is not methodical, would be taken (in my opinion rightly) as a gross insult,
by any one of the thousands of practicing professional philosophers out there.
Probably the central pillar of methodology in philosophy is rationalism
(using the word in its non-technical sense), which might in itself be
examined by a philosopher, but would not be seriously questioned as a
methodology by anyone with any sympathy for modern British/American
philosophy.

>And in daily usage (at least in
>Dutch, but I guess also in English), one can hear: "OK, that sounds nice,
>but until you can prove it's true, it's mere/just/idle philosophy".

I have heard this, once or twice, and in my opinion it is misuse of
the word. What distinguishes philosophy from garbage is its methodology.
The fact that that methodology cannot be completely and precisely defined,
(and more to the point: is not familiar to the layman) does not mean it
does not exist.

>I state that there is no criterium for "real philosophy", other than
>"the reflective work which must be performed before any science can
>begin"

It is concerned with the foundations of science, amoung other things, but
it is certainly not `reflective', if that means unmethodical and/or
irrational (or arrational) and/or illogical (or allogical).

>			Never confound beauty with truth!

Why not? [ I suppose I better add :-) ]

I repeat: make sure you know about something before attempting to enlighten
us all about it.

Robin