Philosophy & Her Children - physics, astronomy, psychology, etc...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: higg meka
From: huge on 6 Jun 2010 12:49 Shrikeback : > Aristotle is the source. Therefore philosphy begat science. Whew! The Greeks had science *way* before Aristotle, who came along only toward the end of Greek culture. > It could > be said that religion begat philosophy in the same sense that primates > begat us. You got more 'begats' than a King James Version, boy. -- huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: Uncle Ben on 6 Jun 2010 12:50 On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > The history of philosophy reads like a long family saga. In the > beginning there were the great patriarch and matriarch, the searches > for knowledge and wisdom, who bore a large number of children. > Mathematics, physics, ethics psychology, logic, political thought, > metaphysics (the search for knowledge of the ultimate nature of > reality), and epistemology (the study of knowledge itself)-all > belonged to the same family. Philosophers were not just philosophers, > but mathematicians and physicists and psychologists as well. Indeed, > in the the beginning of the family's history, no distinction was made > between philosophy and these other disciplines... (...) > To make philosophy as scientifically respectable as such long-gone leading to a familiar family crisis. What was left for philosophy > to do?... > > Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olenhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/ The physicist Richard Feynman opined that the distinguishing character of a "science" is that the criterion for truth lies in successful experimental confirmation. Inspired by this idea, I have asked my philosopher colleagues, what is the criterion for correctness of philophical ideas? No one has yet given me an answer. Feynman would thus distinguish sharply between philosophy and science. Witness the fact that philosophers are still pondering ancient questions, while scientists have made huge progress since the time of Galileo. Uncle Ben
From: Uncle Ben on 6 Jun 2010 13:01 On Jun 6, 12:26 pm, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 7:38 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The history of philosophy reads like a long family saga. In the > > beginning there were the great patriarch and matriarch, the searches > > for knowledge and wisdom, who bore a large number of children. > > Mathematics, physics, ethics psychology, logic, political thought, > > metaphysics (the search for knowledge of the ultimate nature of > > reality), and epistemology (the study of knowledge itself)-all > > belonged to the same family. Philosophers were not just philosophers, > > but mathematicians and physicists and psychologists as well. Indeed, > > in the the beginning of the family's history, no distinction was made > > between philosophy and these other disciplines... > > You don't think science could raise itself > up by its own bootstraps, do you? Without > the philosophy of science, there is no scientific > method, there is no science. You can't construct > science using science. Do you think that Galileo and Newton needed philosophers of science in order to create physics? I don't think so. Physics came first, and philosophy of science came along afterwards to try to neaten up things. I enjoy reading the philosophy of science, but it is a fact that no physics department I know of imposes a philosophy requirement on its students. Uncle Ben
From: Androcles on 6 Jun 2010 13:14 "Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:db2e711f-1b84-40ff-b626-268bd95676e4(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > The history of philosophy reads like a long family saga. In the > beginning there were the great patriarch and matriarch, the searches > for knowledge and wisdom, who bore a large number of children. > Mathematics, physics, ethics psychology, logic, political thought, > metaphysics (the search for knowledge of the ultimate nature of > reality), and epistemology (the study of knowledge itself)-all > belonged to the same family. Philosophers were not just philosophers, > but mathematicians and physicists and psychologists as well. Indeed, > in the the beginning of the family's history, no distinction was made > between philosophy and these other disciplines... (...) > To make philosophy as scientifically respectable as such long-gone leading to a familiar family crisis. What was left for philosophy > to do?... > > Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey > Olenhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/ The physicist Richard Feynman opined that the distinguishing character of a "science" is that the criterion for truth lies in successful experimental confirmation. Inspired by this idea, I have asked my philosopher colleagues, what is the criterion for correctness of philophical ideas? No one has yet given me an answer. Feynman would thus distinguish sharply between philosophy and science. Witness the fact that philosophers are still pondering ancient questions, while scientists have made huge progress since the time of Galileo. Uncle Ben =========================================== The physicist, mathematician and philosopher Isaac Newton gave the answer, Bonehead, you asked the wrong philosophers. "We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to itself. " RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. RULE II. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets. RULE III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the extension of bodies than by our senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others also. That abundance of bodies are hard, we learn by experience; and because the hardness of the whole arises from the hardness of the parts, we therefore justly infer the hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable, we gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrable, and thence conclude impenetrability to be an universal property of all bodies whatsoever. That all bodies are moveable, and endowed with certain powers (which we call the vires inerti�) of persevering in their motion, or in their rest we only infer from the like properties observed in the bodies which we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vis inerti� of the whole, result from the extension hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vires inerti� of the parts; and thence we conclude the least particles of all bodies to be also all extended, and hard and impenetrable, and moveable, and endowed with their proper vires inerti�. And this is the foundation of all philosophy. Moreover, that the divided but contiguous particles of bodies may be separated from one another, is matter of observation; and, in the particles that remain undivided, our minds are able to distinguish yet lesser parts, as is mathematically demonstrated. But whether the parts so distinguished, and not yet divided, may, by the powers of Nature, be actually divided and separated from one another, we cannot certainly determine. Yet, had we the proof of but one experiment that any undivided particle, in breaking a hard and solid body, offered a division, we might by virtue of this rule conclude that the undivided as well as the divided particles may be divided and actually separated to infinity. Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates towards the earth; that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon; and all the planets mutually one towards another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. For the argument from the appearances concludes with more force for the universal gravitation of all bodies that for their impenetrability; of which, among those in the celestial regions, we have no experiments, nor any manner of observation. Not that I affirm gravity to be essential to bodies: by their vis insita I mean nothing but their vis inerti�. This is immutable. Their gravity is diminished as they recede from the earth. RULE IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from ph�nomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other ph�nomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses. Witness the fact that relativists are still pondering ancient twin paradoxes and black holes, while engineers have made huge progress since the time of Galileo; scientists have moved over to biochemistry and geology etc., while you are floundering in physics down a blind alley.
From: Androcles on 6 Jun 2010 13:17
"Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:7161b081-9a37-4846-b866-028996d7b544(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jun 6, 12:26 pm, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 7:38 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The history of philosophy reads like a long family saga. In the > > beginning there were the great patriarch and matriarch, the searches > > for knowledge and wisdom, who bore a large number of children. > > Mathematics, physics, ethics psychology, logic, political thought, > > metaphysics (the search for knowledge of the ultimate nature of > > reality), and epistemology (the study of knowledge itself)-all > > belonged to the same family. Philosophers were not just philosophers, > > but mathematicians and physicists and psychologists as well. Indeed, > > in the the beginning of the family's history, no distinction was made > > between philosophy and these other disciplines... > > You don't think science could raise itself > up by its own bootstraps, do you? Without > the philosophy of science, there is no scientific > method, there is no science. You can't construct > science using science. Do you think that Galileo and Newton needed philosophers of science in order to create physics? ======================================== Yes. Galileo and Newton were philosophers of science and mathematicians. ======================================== I don't think ======================================== We already know that, whoever accused you of thinking should be sued for libel. |