Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!thirdi!sarge
From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Do philosophers need defending?
Message-ID: <77@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 01:57:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.77
Posted: Mon Aug  3 01:57:42 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Aug-87 01:05:36 EDT
References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Distribution: world
Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology
Lines: 60
Keywords: science philosophy empiricism methodology definition
Summary: A proposed definition of science.

In article <835@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:

>Does "Natural Philosophy" constitute one? (If it means what the Dutch
>aequivalent means, it's as much as "pre-scientific physics+biology",
>including bits of chemistry, geology, mineralogy, etc.) Sounds rather
>empirical.
>
>I think you wouldn't call every attempt to find an empirical truth
>"scientific"...
>
>Also: "the sciences" try to explain the world using "logic yields truth"
>as part of their methodology. Christian science (I learn from the net)
>does the same, using "the Bible yields truth" as part of their methodology.
>I don't know of any other differences (but then again: I only heard about
>them on the net). So both are equally (un)scientific to you?

Good point.  I didn't mean, however, to give an exhaustive definition of
philosophy and of science -- only a means for differentiating one from the
other -- namely, by purpose.

I stated:

>Disciplines are best defined in terms of their overriding goals or purposes, I
>believe.  I like my criterion for differentiating philosophy and science:
>Philosophy has the purpose of arriving at non-empirical truths; science has
>the purpose of arriving at empirical truths.

However, to give a *definition* of science would be more challenging.  Let me
see -- how about:

"A science is a discipline whose purpose is to arrive at universal empirical
laws."

Following Kuhn, one would probably have to add something about there being a
currently universally or widely accepted paradigm covering the discipline in
question.  Further, the data used in the discipline must be consensually
validatable.  In the absence of a generally accepted paradigm, according to
Kuhn, we have merely a proto-science.  Psychology, I believe, falls into the
category of a proto-science.  A lot of paradigms are floating around, but none
has become prevalent.  The same is probably true for the other "social
sciences", and certainly for such things as parapsychology. So:

"A science is a discipline whose purpose is to arrive at universal empirical
laws, whose data is consensually validatable, and where there is a prevalent
paradigm that is widely or universally agreed on."

Note that the above proposed definition does not mention methodology.  I think
many sciences come into existence and stick around for quite some time before
people come to realise what methodology they have been using.  The methodology
seems to mature right along with the data and the theory.

Philosophy, I think, would be even more difficult to define.
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge