[Serious Phil] Wittgenstein Slides

[Eray Ozkural]

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 11:14 PM, SWM <Philscimind at undergroundwiki.org>wrote:

> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <Philscimind at ...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 11:03 PM, SWM <Philscimind at ...>wrote:
> >
> > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "walto" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <Philscimind@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well, you seem to think philosophy is something else than science.
> It
> > > > > isn't. Philosophy is just high-level science. When it isn't, it is
> > > > > meaningless.
> > > > >
> > > > > Naturalist philosophy = science. No distinction. Of course Quine
> had it
> > > > > wrong. Wittgenstein?  Philosophy is not word juggling, philosophy
> is
> > > good
> > > > > thinking, and good philosophy doesn't embrace stupid things like
> > > religion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would discuss this with you maybe, but not at this doofusy site.
>  Post
> > > it again either at Analytic, Analytic-Borders, or QuickPhilosophy and
> maybe
> > > we can have an adult talk.
> > > >
> > > > W
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do you bother posting here if that's how you feel? Indeed, why come
> > > here at all? Your contributions aren't sought out as far as I can see
> nor
> > > are they eagerly awaited by anyone, and they certainly don't contribute
> > > anything but the usual sour sarcasm you generally have on offer.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'll discuss on the analytic list, too. Why not? But here, let me just
> say
> > that I disagree with SWM that philosophy does not predict anything.
> >
> > Theoretically, if that is true, then philosophy doesn't produce any new
> > information, which means that it is a waste of thought.
> >
> > So that's why that mathematical theory bit is so important. None of those
> > post modern philosophers could say that with any certainty. I can.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University,
> Ankara
>
>
> Yes, Eray, we clearly differ about what philosophy is and its value. I
> simply don't think it's just science in another guise or that it's an
> adjunct of science. It's a different game, at least nowadays. At one time,
> as those familiar with the history of these disciplines will surely know,
> there was just the search for knowledge and no clear distinction between
> applying empirical methods to study the facts of the world and thinking
> about things in order to speculate about them. But the sciences peeled
> away, one by one, until today we have a broad array of different sciences
> specializing in different areas of empirical inquiry and all characterized
> by the focus on empirical issues. Philosophy, once thought the mother of
> all sciences, has been reduced to a core of itself, in this case the part
> of inquiry that concerns itself with conceptual issues.
>
>
You completely avoid answering my complaint. If what you said were true,
there would be NO GENUINE NEW INFORMATION in philosophy. It would all be
trivial logical inferences. What Walto said in other words, really.

It's a very misleading view of science to think that science is always
about an ultra-specialized field. Many good scientists don't work that way.

And I can't think of any useful concept that cannot be researched by
science.


> This is not to say that there are not conceptual aspects to the sciences
> or that some science is not highly or even mostly theoretical.


No, you said exactly that and now you contradict yourself.



> Nor is it to say that philosophy must somehow avoid empirical questions.


You did mean that as well.



> It's only to point out that empirical inquiry is a different game than
> conceptual analysis (however we define that, whether linguistic or logical
> or something else) and that there is a place for both.


No, it isn't.


> Nevertheless neither can override the other in its particular domain.


Their domains are not different.



> So philosophy should not attempt to do scientific work by speculation and
> the sciences should not attempt to resolve conceptual questions by
> experimentation and testing in the world.
>
>
No, philosophy should do that, because it's meaningful only when it does
that.

And science should resolve conceptual questions by experimentation. For
instance, we got rid of the stupid concept of "cartesian theater". That's
mostly thanks to experimental evidence.

Science and philosophy has never been apart. The philosophers who think it
is something else entirely, probably aren't doing any useful philosophy I
think.


Best,

-- 
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://undergroundwiki.org/pipermail/philscimind_undergroundwiki.org/attachments/20120606/fd3254c9/attachment.htm>