Return-Path: sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 23 Feb 93 10:20:57 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odq -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -fsocgrad-relay socgrad-list Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 10:20:57 -0800 From: postmast@UCSD.EDU (UCSD Postmaster) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: retransmitted message for the list. >From socgrad-relay Mon Feb 22 14:08:20 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 22 Feb 93 14:08:20 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odq -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -fsocgrad-relay socgrad-list From: CGH2@PSUVM.BITNET Mon, 22 Feb 93 22:08:18 GMT Date: 22 Feb 93 16:52 EST To: SOCGRAD@.BitNet, UCSD.EDU@PSUVM.BITNET Subject: Sending you "REPLY TEXT A0" in this note 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 >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. Ir re; 'many metaphysical stances' Yes, thank you, my point exactly. Given that a metaphysical system is a self-contained body of knowledge, it is impossible to choose which system better represents reality without reference to a third (or fourth etc.) system. Perhaps this third system could be the study of relations between individuals (i.e. sociology). Or do you prefer another system? So shall we say that sociology is necessary to philosophy? Or do you prefer to keep philosophy unsullied by the dirty empiriscism of sociology? Perhaps we have some common ground here after all. >> 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. Thanks for deleting my esseintial point, that sociology in it's most general form requires at least two individuals. By classical I assume you are refering to Baconian science. Yes, a reductionist, deterministic science has its shortcomings, but also advantages over other types of sciences. Have we exhausted the possibilities of Baconian science in sociology? I don't think so. Let's hear your outline for a better science. >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. Early 20th actually. Is this different tack better than the old? Or a false turn? Who or how will we determine if Wittgenstein is correct? >> 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. . Are you saying knowing = method Mr. Williams? Allow me the courtesty to answer. Yes you are. Summary of Mr.Greens arguement as interpreted by Williams deleted. > (my problem with this argument is that I don't accept the > premise of physicalism.) > (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. MAYBE, if you equate the scientific method (Baconian?) with science. As you noted in B, science can progess through the accumulation of knowledge and/or through the improvement of the method itself. It remains to be demonstrated if _certain philosophical tools or concepts_ can indeed improve the scientific method itself. >cordially, >Kaj E. Williams kajw@cwis.unomaha.edu >"No one dies of fatal truths nowadays: there are too > many antidotes". - Nietzsche Kent Green 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