Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!hubcap!steve From: steve@hubcap.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: What is a methodology Message-ID: <385@hubcap.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Aug-87 09:14:01 EDT Article-I.D.: hubcap.385 Posted: Fri Aug 14 09:14:01 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 17:50:48 EDT References: <91@thirdi.UUCP> Distribution: world Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC Lines: 30 > In article <850@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes: >> >>[Biep goes on at great length with specifics.] > in article <91@thirdi.UUCP>, sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) says: >> The methodologies of science, then, would consist of the means used in >> discovering empirical truths. The methodologies of philosophy would consist >> of the means used to discover non-empirical truths. I think both sides need exploring. All this started (I think) over the question of the role philosophy in science. [I don't like to dwell too much on "methodology" - it too often has a "mechanistic" quality about it]. I think Sarge has a good point. But the development of methodology relies on list of questions to focus on. Two thoughts come to mind (I hope these are not _non sequitors_). Thomas Aquinas was master of a methodology call "disputatio" (sp?). Latin was standardized to deny him that tool. [Food for thought]. That got me interested in kindred concepts (methodology of discourse). Hard to come up with any real leads. The counter example to methodology is in Barrett's book _The Illusion of Technique_. On Biep's side, knowing what questions to ask is critical. In this age of the quick fix, it is hard to pin folks down as to what the ultimate questions really are. [This has been particularly annoying in my own discipline.] Anyway, continue on, you two. -- D. E. (call me Steve) Stevenson steve@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of Computer Science, (803)656-5880.mabell Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906