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

[Japher]

"So is philosophy culture or knowlegde?"

Obviously it's not knowledge or the degree would actually be worth something, and isn't culture or you would get credits for going to a party

[Agathon]

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.

They just think that folk psychology is not scientifically respectable. I'm inclined to agree, but I think that it doesn't matter. So put me in Davidson's camp.

[KrazyHorse]

Japher

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So is philosophy culture or knowlegde?

Both, unless you're a Dadaist nihilist, in which case the answer is greenly noised laundry fish.

I think it would be true to say that there are areas of science where philosophy and hard science overlap- and have been doing so since before Bishop Berkeley and his 'to be is to perceive or to be perceived'.

Although Dr. Johnson would refute it all with a backwards kick.

By the by, karzyhoser, I think you meant smidgeon.

Unless smidgum is some Canadian physicists sticky sub atomic matter, or a Newfie fish dish.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by 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.

Kuhn wasn't a philosopher per se. But his work influenced a lot of philosophers of science. He's interesting, but his model is a bit simplistic. I think he's one of the last historian of science to try to give an account of science in general.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Agathon
Great. I try to make philosophy look good and the continentalists come in.

I'm not a "continentalist"... I'm an analytic philosopher of science, whatever that means. Kuhn wasn't a "continentalist" either.

[Agathon]

Rorty is.

Anyway, Plato PWNZ all modern philosophers.

[SpencerH]

I like to tilt at medical paradigms and so far I've brought down a few. Unfortunately, I've made a few enemies of the people who were too stupid to question inconsistencies in what they assumed were facts.

[Agathon]

Reading the Rorty paper, he says:

It was pointed out by Edmund Gettier in 1962 that there was a flaw in the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief—the definition first put forward by Plato.

Yeah, but Plato introduces it only to point out why it has to fail, and nobody bothered to listen to him. If more people read the Theaetetus we could finally dump a lot of worthless stuff.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Agathon
Reading the Rorty paper, he says:



Yeah, but Plato introduces it only to point out why it has to fail, and nobody bothered to listen to him. If more people read the Theaetetus we could finally dump a lot of worthless stuff.

True. IMO that's a sad consequence of analytic philosophy's stance against history of philosophy. I read somewhere that they even tried to eliminate history of philosophy from the curriculum. Like Rorty himself pointed out (he says sensible things once in a while ):

Quine was openly scornful about the study of the history of philosophy. In his own student years, Quine had made a point of reading as few of the canonical texts as possible, and he recommended this practice to his students at Harvard. He believed the history of philosophy to be just as irrelevant to current philosophical inquiry as is the history of physics to current research in that field. Quine admired Carnap for having, when asked to teach an introductory course in Plato, responded that he would not teach Plato, because he would teach nothing but the truth. Quinean attitudes of this sort were widespread at Princeton. The Princeton students dutifully competed with one another in argumentative skill and dialectical acumen, rather than in acquiring a wide range of learning.

You have to hand it to them: they had chutzpah!

[Flinx]

Originally posted by loinburger
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality...

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

or

How do you know what you know?

Originally posted by Darsnan
Experience. Yes, I utilize a pradigm. I am not blinded by my paradigm because part of my paradigm is to assess and interogate the environment that I find myself in, and act in response to that information. Does that always mean I will be succesful? No. Hence my reply above of "experience".

Your paradigm is how you assess and integrate the world around you.

Originally posted by Japher
My Paradigm: People are stupid, act accordingly.

When someone has this paradigm about an identifiable group they can be called racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist, classis etc. For example, if a racist thinks all Romany (Gypsies) are smelly lazy ignorant thieves, any Romany that do not fit that description are dismissed/ignored as individual exceptions while anyone who is perceived to have these attributes reinforces the belief. Another person with a different paradigm could think that people like the person in the previous example deny Romany jobs and access to housing and education, forcing them into ghettos, so it is not surprising that some resort to stealing, and the fact that some have escaped this fate is proof that the all could if given the opportunity.

[The Vagabond]

Paradigm is a pattern of thinking (and perhaps acting upon it).

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So is philosophy culture or knowlegde?

It's a synthesis and culmination of both.

[The Vagabond]

Historians (especially the falsifiers of history).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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.

Bingo.

He was certainly explaining a phenomenon. How intelligent people could simply go about adding more and more wheels to their Ptolemaic models, until some bright light, or lights, came along and turned it all on its head, and things like that.

I don't give a damn what philosophers may say about it, it is a useful thing to be aware of when studying history.