Philosophy and Science: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Philosophy and Science » Philosophy and Science

Page: 1 2

Philosophy and Science

Analytic
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Location: Europe

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 562

Posted 08/10/04 - 07:00 PM:	#1
Ought a philosopher dealing with a specific topic know what sciences say about it? The other day somebody proposed the view that having a background in linguistics is absolutely no requirement for a philosopher to philosophize about language (about meaning in particular). The reason, as I understood, was that we can all speak and understand at least one language, so everything we as philosophers should know we already know. My question: Do you think this is so or have a different opinion? The question is theoretical, I don't care about anybody's scientific background. I, for one, think the truth is just the opposite, and basically for the following reasons. 1) It is not true that we have extensive or very deep knowledge about the things we use every day. For example, most people can count very well, still a mathematician specializing in arithmetics knows a lot more about numbers than people do. His knowledge consists basically in having a lot more sophisticated notions than average people do and in his capacity to apply those notions in ways unknown to non-mathematicians. For example, in algebra, we use notions like congruence relations and the like that have originated in simple divisibility relations among natural numbers but are much more abstract than those. Also, though most of us speak fluently, the grammar that we apply is more or less in the subconscious part of the mind (we speak applying grammar in an automatic way) and can only be described with any precision through such notions as trees (from graph theory), while the fundamental property of productivity of human language cannot even be stated explicitly without using such notions as 'recursion'. Actually, words and sentences play a similar role in contemporary linguistics as numbers in the science of arithmetics. 2) New and philosophically interesting questions can come from having at least some acquaintance with the problems of special sciences. For example, most of the really interesting problems of time are not really accessible to somebody who doesn't know anything about the theories of relativity. Also, plenty of interesting philosophical questions about the mind have actually come from the field of artificial intelligence and cognitive science (see e.g. Dennett or Searle, just to name two). Also, in learning theory it is a basic question how much of our grammatical knowledge can be learned from rough experience and what parts must be in-born. Further, in semantics a fairly new theory of meaning created originally by logicians and mathematicians like Frege, Russell and Montague is being applied to natural language as well as to automatic natural language processing, bringing its own philosophical problems. 3) Scientific knowledge can shed radically new light on old philosophical questions. This point is basically a consequence of the previous two, and I think it's just trivial. For example, our approach to the human mind or to social and even ethical questions are more and more influenced by the facts ethology, the theory of evolution and genetics have discovered. To ignore them would simply to ignore facts about the biological basis of behaviour. Also, questions of language acquisition have revived an interest in Descartes's conception of innate ideas. In the philosophy of mind, Gödel's theorems together with results from computer science are a most debated issue. The list is literally endless.

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 08/10/04 - 08:59 PM:	#2
Analytic wrote: Ought a philosopher dealing with a specific topic know what sciences say about it? This question brings up a dilemma. To be passably aquainted with even one branch of science requires as much study as does philosophy, and the mindset to learn philosophy can be quite different than learning a science, making dual competence ever less likely.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

Analytic
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Location: Europe

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 562

Posted 08/10/04 - 09:53 PM:	#3
YadaYada wrote: This question brings up a dilemma. To be passably aquainted with even one branch of science requires as much study as does philosophy... This is very true. I don't think one can be an expert in two fields (or at least, it's very rare). What I meant was rather that when I, as a philosopher, talk about something which is also studied by a separate science, ought I not be aware of at least the basic concepts and results in the field? I'm not saying that a philosopher should contribute to say physics (though it's not impossible) but at least should be familiar with Relativity if he talks about the philosophy of time. YadaYada wrote: ...and the mindset to learn philosophy can be quite different than learning a science, making dual competence ever less likely. This is an interesting point. Maybe, but I think that basically both science and philosophy requires similar mental skills.

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 08/11/04 - 02:12 PM:	#4
I do not think that a philosopher of science should be a scientist, but I do agree that to philosophize about science demands knowledge about science. The same applies, for example, to language, as you pointed out. Some people grossly misinterpret sciences because they do not know what they are about and thus make either irrelevant or plainly wrong philosophical assertions. On the other hand, I believe that a person can be quite well acquinted with the general framework of science necessary to philosophize about it even though she is not overly knowledgeable in science. One does not need to know how to calculate the dilatation of time in theory of relativity to understand its basic philosophical consequences. The line is hard to draw. It most often comes excruciatingly clear when someone does not have the necessary knowledge, though. That particular point seems to me be quite vividly on display in discussions concerning evolution theory.
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 08/11/04 - 02:58 PM:	#5
I agree with you Morrandir, too little education is bad. I think as well that too much formal education in a field has some potential dangers for a philosopher also. When formally educated you are taught that certain things are 'true' and never taught why. It is neccessary to expidite many thousands of years of learning and discovery into a few years. This often makes it difficult to realise that a 'truth' may be assumed for poor reasons, and this would be counter-productive to a philosopher. I am not saying that we over-value formal education as a whole, only that for a philosopher it is a double edged sword.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5427

Posted 08/11/04 - 03:07 PM:	#6
Perhaps philosophy should close the book on the non-controversial parts of science. You don't have to become an expert to learn what issues have been resolved and what evidence is. I have been taken aback at the bravado with which some settled topics have been challenged here by people who apparently have never probed into the science behind the controversy.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4371

Posted 08/11/04 - 03:08 PM:	#7
I think the most important skill for philosophers and scientists alike (when engaging in philosophical discussions) is to know when you don't know something. Good ole' Socrates' piece of advice. This skill is lacking in many (if not most) people, but I would venture a guess and say that it is more likely to be found in someone with philosophical inclinations (including scientists) than in someone with inflexible inclinations (including philosophers). "The scientist" often assumes an inflexible stance when discussing matters of his own field with a layman. and this is not necessarily wrong -- in many cases (including most debates on evolution ) the gap in knowledge is so tremendous that the other person must be brought to a shock before he ever revises his position. However, even though it might be desirable for pedagogic purposes, the inflexible stance is surely most unphilosophical, and anyone who adopts it must remind himself that it is only a method. I think it is this difference of method, rather than the particular field of expertise (philosophy vs. science), that is most relevant. As Morrandir said, someone needs knowledge of science to discuss philosophy of science, but also very importantly, one needs knowledge of philosophy to discuss philosophy of science. I would say it is more important than the knowledge of any particular science. Because scientists who lack that knowledge often fall for very old errors, and go far beyond what their data warrant, when discussing matters philosophical. Summing up, even if both activities require similar skills, they surely do not require similar habits. Scientists often are more deficient in healthy discussion habits (such as putting yourself in the other's shoe, taking note in the flaws and weaknesses of your own position, examining every argument logically, etc.) than philosophers -- they usually discuss within a paradigm, not in the philosophical free-for-all space of no paradigms. Going back to the evolution debate, while many are at fault for not studying the issue in depth and relying on religious authorities, many others are at fault for not noticing the limitations of Darwinian theory and for drawing conclusions about the nature of the universe, or of human society, based solely on it. In effect, confusing the scientific theory with the metaphysical stance.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Analytic
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Location: Europe

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 562

Posted 08/12/04 - 12:15 AM:	#8
Mariner wrote: I think it is this difference of method, rather than the particular field of expertise (philosophy vs. science), that is most relevant. As Morrandir said, someone needs knowledge of science to discuss philosophy of science, but also very importantly, one needs knowledge of philosophy to discuss philosophy of science. I would say it is more important than the knowledge of any particular science. Because scientists who lack that knowledge often fall for very old errors, and go far beyond what their data warrant, when discussing matters philosophical. Actually, I'm not talking about philosophy of science because a philosopher of science without a strong background in some science would be obviously, well, very hard to take seriously. No, what I'm talking about is this: to what extend can alleged language philosopher X be said to know his own topic, language, if he hasn't the vaguest ideas about linguistics, and what he thinks to be linguistic knowledge is as obsolete as Aristotle's theories on various life forms. Can you be a philosopher of language without real theoretical knowledge concerning language? (Or, can you be a philosopher philosophizing about biological life without having solid knowledge about the theory of evolution and related facts?) As I read some of the posts in the philosophy of language section, I'm struck again and again by the fact that in philosophy one can easily get away with a zero of scientific knowledge, by saying things as 'why would linguistics be important to a philosopher?'. And they really don't know anything about language, except for thousand-year-old platitudes. (But there are also some posters who are not linguists I think but have a pretty good grasp of linguistics.) This attitude is not peculiar of these fora, of course. This sort of narrow-mindedness has been widespread among the professional philosophers I've met in real life (and I've met quite a few) and was one of the reasons I didn't choose to become a philosopher myself. I think this strange situation can be explained by two things: first, in philosophy education it's still implicit that Philosophy is master of the sciences. To hold such a view today is, of course, ridiculous but it's in the dusty air of philosophy departments. Second, and perhaps a consequence of the previous, philosophy has been in a permanent identity crisis since the end of the second world war (or even earlier) all over the world and, to put it a bit dramatically, it is struggling for survival in the academic fields. No wonder students study philosophy in an atmosphere hostile to sciences at large because sciences are now a threat to philosophy's self-identification by more and more focussing on questions traditionally dealt with by only philosophers (see cognitive science as a good example). The first reaction is to put on Zaphod Beeblebrox's special sunglasses that turn pitch black at the signs of any danger to help their owner keep his peace of mind. But this is the looser's strategy in the long run because people coming from the special sciences with a philosophical interest are already taking the place of the philosophers with blinkers. Rightly, I must say, though I agree with you that a good scientist is not necessarily a good philosopher. But what can we do if philosophers will continue to refuse to give up their pride and start to seriously study the fields they make judgements about?

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 08/12/04 - 12:19 AM:	#9
Analytic wrote: Ought a philosopher dealing with a specific topic know what sciences say about it? The other day somebody proposed the view that having a background in linguistics is absolutely no requirement for a philosopher to philosophize about language (about meaning in particular). The reason, as I understood, was that we can all speak and understand at least one language, so everything we as philosophers should know we already know. My question: Do you think this is so or have a different opinion? The question is theoretical, I don't care about anybody's scientific background. Of course I think it is so. I said it. Screw science. But the reason you gave does't have me quite right. It doesn't matter though. Screw science. When it comes to doing philosophy, I don't need them. Go build a bridge or something and leave me alone. The only thing scientists do for philosophy, as far as I can tell, is get in the way of it. This is especially true in discussion of perception -- color, sound, etc.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 08/12/04 - 12:34 AM:	#10
Actually, I'm not talking about philosophy of science because a philosopher of science without a strong background in some science would be obviously, well, very hard to take seriously. No, what I'm talking about is this: to what extend can alleged language philosopher X be said to know his own topic, language, if he hasn't the vaguest ideas about linguistics, and what he thinks to be linguistic knowledge is as obsolete as Aristotle's theories on various life forms. Can you be a philosopher of language without real theoretical knowledge concerning language? Well let's take the prime example of Frege, and, specifically, his distinction between Sinn and Bedeutung. I don't think that Frege knew any linguistics, since linguists as a modern going concern did not exist when Frege wrote. (What there was was diachronic linguistics, etymology). Yet, Frege's distinction is, I think you will agree, of great importance. On a personal note: In the early 60s, after the Chomsky revelation, the philosopher, Paul Ziff published his book, Semantic Analysis which tried to apply descriptive linguistics to the philosophy of language. For example, he tried to tackle the problem of ambiguity linguistically. Ziff, apparently, had more than a passing acquaintance with linguistics. I tried not only to read the book, but also to use the book in a philosophy of language course I taught. This course was on the graduate level, and graduate students, from the graduate department in linguistics attended. I have to report that they were most uninterested in what Ziff had to say, but were very much interested in Frege. They thought that Frege's thought really taught them something about language that they needed to know. (I think it was partly that their program was full of syntax, and had nothing on semantics.) I think that in principle you are saying something that has truth in it. But, that it really depends on what problems of language are being dealt with. Don't you think so?

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.