Paradigm. Do you know what one is? Do you have one? Are you blinded by it?

[KrazyHorse]

Artists:

[MrFun]

historians

philosophers

uncultured scientists

loading up on bad carbs with a cream-cheese stuffed pretzel for lunch

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
God you physicists talk a load of **** that doesn't even add up to a smidgum of knowledge.

Physicists' research has resulted in a lot more actual benefit to society than philosophers'

[Kuciwalker]

Models

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Come on, Aggie. Show the evidence for what you believe. Why do you think that Descarte's dualism is ridiculous? Is it anything other than convention or do you have something to back you up?

Because it's a wheel that turns nothing. There is no a priori reason to assume an insuperable barrier between the mental and the physical that prevents physicalist explanations of conciousness.

And that isn't what you were talking about at the time. You were talking about Cartesian privacy, stating that the foundation of human knowledge rests on private, experienced states which are somehow prior to scientific theorizing.

That view has been rejected in favour of naturalized accounts of epistemology. These reject the notion of hypothesized entities such as sense data or mental states in favour of reconciling our talk of intentional states (beliefs, desires, etc.) with the physical reality of the brain. Some philosophers, called eliminativsts, think we should go even further and reject intentional states as mere "folk psychology".

It's painfully obvious that you have little idea of what philosophers actually do these days.

[Nostromo]

"Paradigm" has become a buzzword. AFAIK, it was Thomas Kuhn who popularized it. For those of you who want to have a better idea of what he meant by "paradigm", read the poscript to "The structure of scientific revolutions". And if that's not clear enough, check out Paul Hoyningen-Huene's
"Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions".

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Agathon

Some philosophers, called eliminativsts, think we should go even further and reject intentional states as mere "folk psychology".

But they're a minority. Even Stich is not longer an eliminativist.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because it's a wheel that turns nothing. There is no a priori reason to assume an insuperable barrier between the mental and the physical that prevents physicalist explanations of conciousness.

And that isn't what you were talking about at the time. You were talking about Cartesian privacy, stating that the foundation of human knowledge rests on private, experienced states which are somehow prior to scientific theorizing.

That view has been rejected in favour of naturalized accounts of epistemology. These reject the notion of hypothesized entities such as sense data or mental states in favour of reconciling our talk of intentional states (beliefs, desires, etc.) with the physical reality of the brain. Some philosophers, called eliminativsts, think we should go even further and reject intentional states as mere "folk psychology".

It's painfully obvious that you have little idea of what philosophers actually do these days.

and it would seem that analytic philosophers dont care much about, and arent relevant to, the folk.

[lord of the mark]

I read Kuhn eons ago, when the world was young Im not equipped to critique it as philosophy - my impression was that it was fairly powerful as a statement about the history of science.

[Agathon]

Great. I try to make philosophy look good and the continentalists come in.

[lord of the mark]

a very interesting essay by Richard Rorty, on analytical and continental philosophy, that touches on Kuhn, Davidson, and other topics mentioned in this thread.


http://www.stanford.edu/~rrorty/analytictrans.htm

[Agathon]

Rorty? The end is nigh....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

of the brain. Some philosophers, called eliminativsts, think we should go even further and reject intentional states as mere "folk psychology".

They write it and say it. Whether they think it I have no idea. Unless "think" is merely a word that refers to a particular variety of such acts. Though I dont beleive it is.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Rorty? The end is nigh....

and the last man, as well.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MrFun
historians

philosophers

uncultured scientists

So is philosophy culture or knowlegde?