Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!hadron!inco!mack From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method. Message-ID: <333@inco.UUCP> Date: Fri, 31-Jul-87 10:48:38 EDT Article-I.D.: inco.333 Posted: Fri Jul 31 10:48:38 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Aug-87 01:35:30 EDT References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <586@rlgvax.UUCP> Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA Lines: 70 Summary: Definitions: what is science, what is philosophy. Hi, Cliff! How's things at CCI? In article <586@rlgvax.UUCP>, cliff@rlgvax.UUCP (Cliff Joslyn) writes: > In article <329@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > > > > Science: > > uses a formal language (mathematics) which is susceptible > > to analysis. > > deals with observable phenomena. > > proceeds from a relatively small number of explicitly > > stated axioms. > > Howdy neighbor. I must disagree with this. A physicist approaching the > world is working perhaps on a specific problem, but with a whole wealth > of perhaps even unconscious assumptions about the world and how it > works. However, I do believe that he/she is trying to determine those > axioms (first principles, fundamental forces, natural laws) from which > that whole can be deduced, which is almost exactly the converse of the > above. We're talking about a different set of axioms here. The axioms I was referring to were of a more general nature. Examples: What we (and our instruments) perceive is the "actual" universe. Physical laws are universal and invariant over time. Physical laws can be represented mathematically. > > Philosophy: > > uses an informal (natural) language which is not susceptible > > to analysis. > > Only some kinds of philosophy. There is a great deal of "analytical" > philosophy of mind and language which is constantly developing novel > formal languages. Indeed, logic itself was originally a philosophical This is why I included the section on parascience. What start out as philosophical endeavors may eventually become parascientific, then scientific. Consider the evolution of alchemy into chemistry. It's a matter of how you choose to define philosophy and science. The fact that chemistry has its roots in the philosophies of Democritus and Aristotle doesn't mean that it is a field of philosophy, rather than a science. > endeavor. Of course, what we're talking about is the relation between > philosophy and mathematics. However, I'd grant that Kierkegaard and > Sartre do not work in formalism (well, maybe Sartre, if you pushed it > just right. . .) I guess I would have to contend that mathematics is not necessarily the *only* formal language imaginable. Philosophy begins where the proper formalism breaks down or has not yet been invented, and we have to fall back to natural language to describe and discuss the topic. I regard about 90% of philosophy as semantic confusion coupled with wishful thinking. Sartre is a good example. For me, "Philosophy" is typified by the lecture Martin Buber gave at the University of Chicago many years back, in which he presented a concise argument against birth control and then ended the lecture by saying that this did not apply to India. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Mack (from Mack's Bedroom :<) McDonnell Douglas-Inco, Inc. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed 8201 Greensboro Drive are my own and in no way reflect the McLean, VA 22102 views of McDonnell Douglas or its (703)883-3911 subsidiaries. ...!seismo!sundc!hadron!inco!mack ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++