Return-Path: <socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU>
	sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun
	Fri, 19 Feb 93 22:06:20 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odq -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -fsocgrad-relay socgrad-list
Subject: Re: The relevance of philosophy to everything
To: socgrad@ucsd.edu
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 0:06:47 CST
From: Kaj E. Williams <kajw@cwis.unomaha.edu>



In a previous message, Mr. Green writes:

> Yes, absolute philosphical statements are unprovable because each statement
> which can be logically proven ultimatly regresses to an unproveable first
> principle, or prefered, assertion.

Bravo, in one fell swoop you have discounted mathematics as well.


Williams writes:
> >Since ontologies are classifications of basic substances, they address
> >the question "what exists?". Any science must address such questions
> >(yes, even sociology), either implicitly or explicitly.

    (note the word >science<)

Mr. Green writes:
> No, what is the basic substance geometry? Nothing in the natural world,
> geometry is entirely based on human reasoning.

False analogy. If geometry "...is entirely based on human reasoning", then 
geometry is ipso facto not a science. In addition, you are implicitly
holding to physicalism, which is only one of many metaphysical stances
that are possible. An example of an opposing stance would be Platonism
(or realism). They believe numbers and similar constructs >do< exist. 
That is, that the number or shape is more than a chalk mark on the board.


> >Is it your contention that a conceptually independent view of the world
> >is possible?
> 
> Yes, in fact each individual has a conceptually independent view of the 
> world.

Aha, so now you have adopted a dualistic orientation. See below.

> Q.  Why is philosophy unnecessary to sociology ?
>    Note, not useless, unnecessary.

It seems to be "unnecessary" only if you wholeheartedly accept the 
classical version of science. Otherwise, philosophy is necessary 
in order to construct a better science. 
 
> Philosophy studies the relation of a self-reflective
> consciousness to the world.  The only consciouness that we can know 
> (or misknow, under some formulations) is our own.

So consciousness exists as well as spatiotemporal particulars? 
Yes, unadulterated dualism. It seems, Mr. Green, that your readings in
philosophy ended with the 19th century.  Philosophy in the 20th
century has taken a much different tack via the introduction of
the philosophy of language. If philosophers such as Wittgenstein,
Kripke, etc. are indeed correct, the notion of an absolutely
independent, thinking entity is fundamentally wrong.


> Statements
> regarding the universality of the process of knowing are 
> automatically suspect in my book.

Wow, there goes the validity of the scientific method as being
something all scientists can agree on.



In order to curb unnecessary gainsaying, I have attempted to 
summarize the arguments below. 
Here's the way I see your argument so far:

 A. Physicalism is the correct metaphysical orientation. 
 B. Therefore things that are not spatiotemporal particulars
    don't exist. (by definition of physicalism)
 C. Philosophy talks about things that are not spatiotemporal
    particulars. 
 D. Therefore philosophy talks about things that don't exist.
 E. "Science" is concerned only with things that exist.
 F. Therefore "Science" has no need of philosophy. I.E. philosophy is
    unnecessary for science.

 (my problem with this argument is that I don't accept the
  premise of physicalism.)

Or possibly a second argument:

 A. Philosophy endorses Cartesian dualism, and is characterized by it.
 B. Cartesian dualism emphasizes the thinking, isolated individual.
    Only the individual has priviledged access to his/her thoughts.
 C. Sociology focuses on the relations between two or more individuals.
 D. Philosophy does not.
 E. Therefore sociology has not need of philosophy. 

 (my problem with this argument is that I don't accept the premise
  that philosophy is characterized by Cartesian dualism.)


And my argument is:
 
 A. Classical science (positivism, etc.) is predicated on a 
    certain metaphysical stance. 
 B. The progression of science involves not only increasing the corpus
    of knowledge accumulated (the content) but also the improvement
    of the scientific method itself (as the form).
 B. To improve the scientific method it is necessary to reexamine
    it's most basic assumptions. I.E. we must reexamine it's 
    metaphysical stance.
 C. To do so requires certain philosophical tools or concepts.
 D. The practice of philosophy involves the use of it's tools
    and concepts. (trivial)
 D. Therefore philosophy is necessary for science.

So unfortunately, it seems we have been talking past each
other. 

-- 

cordially,
Kaj E. Williams     kajw@cwis.unomaha.edu
"No one dies of fatal truths nowadays: there are too 
 many antidotes". - Nietzsche