Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher

Question: Who is better to answer/debate this question; a mathematician, a philosopher, or some with dealings in both?

A mathematico-logically minded philosopher or a philosophically minded mathematician. I explained in a previous post that the divisions between departments represent pragmatic compromises rather than strict divisions between disciplines. The general rule is "we shall put all the people who do roughly this sort of thing together as long as the similarities outweigh the differences and they don't fight too much."

I sure am glad Asher was around during my absence to try and keep everyone from falling of the deep end. I too feel that there must be some other use for philosophy, either than encouragin abstract thought, in order to be considered viable for public funding.

This assumes it has to have a use, it could just be an intrinsically valuable exercise, like some other forms of disinterested inquiry. Read my lips: universities are there to enable disinterested inquiry, they are useful to the public, but they are more useful when they are left to their own devices than when they are meddled with by the government.

Thinking outside of a box and rationaly is something that is nice to be able to do, and is taught at many levels in many fields, but you first need box to think outside of.

Thinking rationally may sometimes not be nice, but is often essential.

It nice to see philosophers analyzing what others do, and sometimes it gives a fresh perspective on things. Yet, when that person, the one doing the things, goes back to do those things that the philosophers talked about, they are still going to be following the same laws that the did initially.

No. Do I have to explain the difference between broadly conceptual inquiries and conceptual inquiries again? The scientific method is simply incapable of answering for example, the following question:

Do scientific theories provide us with truths about the universe (that is, are scientific theories realist in nature); or do scientific theories merely provide us with warranted assertions and the most useful explanation (that is, are scientific theories broadly anti-realist).

I opt for the second because looking at history it is highly likely that present scientific orthodoxy will be altered by either new observations or new conceptual innovations (the latter is why Democritus deserves some credit as the founder of atomic theory - to say he doesn't is most likely to adopt a realist stance).

Basically, understanding a thought process does not lead to the ability to apply this thought process. The only things that are useful are those things which may be applied.

If philosophy is the creative side of things then great. Be creative and philosophize about things that may be relevant. I know this; I work on the leading edge of pharmaceutical manufacturing and development, we come up with new drugs and new dilevery methods everyday, and without a single person with a PhD in philosophy... Not even in advertizing. Why is this?

Because I don't see what a philosopher would have to contribute within such a firm.

Why, if philosophy is this all great field of study that has so many applications do we (a fortune 500 company) not have a single PhD in philosophy amongst our employees of well over 200,000?

Because most philosophy PhDs (and there are not many) go on to work in the University system. So do most History PhDs or most Ancient Babylonian Astrology PhDs. Our society requires fewer philosophers than chemists and for various economic reasons they are shut up in Universities (although there are freelance philosophers - how strange).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger


I suggest you read some Godel.

You seem to be spouting some of Russell+Whitehead's debunked system...

Godel's incompleteness theory seems to use much the same mechanism as the liar if I remember correctly.

I'd still like to see a satisfactory solution to the liar though. One that people usually propose is that liar sentences are meaningless. But:

(2) Setence 2 is false or sentence 2 is meaninglesss.


Groan....

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
My philosophy prof was a logician, technically employed under the department of philosophy.

He's finishing a PhD in compsci while he teaches, though, because he feels he made a grave mistake doing philosophy as a graduate field.

Our roomate has a degree in compsci but is enrolled in a philosophy PhD because he feels that compsci leaves certain aspects of his questions unanswered.

Goes both ways.

[KrazyHorse]

But there's no explicit self-reference.

Russell+Whitehead figured that if you could get rid of the obvious contradictory phrases allowable by "naive" set theory then the job would be done.

Godel showed that in a system as powerful as the natural numbers you can always code for contradictions, even if the phrase itself does not contain a self-reference...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
But there's no explicit self-reference.

Russell+Whitehead figured that if you could get rid of the obvious contradictory phrases allowable by "naive" set theory then the job would be done.

Godel showed that in a system as powerful as the natural numbers you can always code for contradictions, even if the phrase itself does not contain a self-reference...

I didn't say there was self reference (that was somebody else). It is generally recognised that the Theory of Types (I assume this is what you mean by Russell and Whitehead's discredited solution) is not up to the job.

The liar is still a problem (although not my problem because I'm in a different field).

Anyway, you didn't answer my original question, are you up to the bit of the Republic about knowledge and belief? And whose translation are you using?

[Japher]

Basically, understanding a thought process does not lead to the ability to apply this thought process. The only things that are useful are those things which may be applied.

did you mean to have this in a quote box?

The scientific method is simply incapable of answering for example, the following question:

Do scientific theories provide us with truths about the universe (that is, are scientific theories realist in nature); or do scientific theories merely provide us with warranted assertions and the most useful explanation (that is, are scientific theories broadly anti-realist).

Such a question cannot be answered without all the facts. Of course the answer can be hypothisized, yet never actually answered. In a way I agree with you in that scientific method really does more of the second thing than the first. Scientific method gives a way to get repeat occurance and to more accuratly predict results of a given action. Basically, if these are the types of questions that philosophers sit around and discuss, and if this is what they are useful for, then really there is no use at all, since your are asking questions that cannot possibly be answered at this time.

Because most philosophy PhDs (and there are not many) go on to work in the University system. So do most History PhDs or most Ancient Babylonian Astrology PhDs. Our society requires fewer philosophers than chemists and for various economic reasons they are shut up in Universities (although there are freelance philosophers - how strange).

and

Read my lips: universities are there to enable disinterested inquiry, they are useful to the public, but they are more useful when they are left to their own devices than when they are meddled with by the government

So you would therefore agree with Asher that philosophy should not receive public funding then. Since public funding entitles the government to "meddle" with your feild. Also, you state that the only thing most philosophers end up doing is going on to teach, does this not imply that they really have no practicle use in society then?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon
The liar is still a problem (although not my problem because I'm in a different field).

The liar isn't actually the problem, though. That's just the proof that Godel used. That interpretation is not necessary for the incompleteness of any axiomatic system; it's simply necessary to prove it.

Which bit about knowledge are you referring to? The chapter I just finished was all about who was allowed to **** who.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher


did you mean to have this in a quote box?

Apparently.

Such a question cannot be answered without all the facts. Of course the answer can be hypothisized, yet never actually answered.

Of course it can be answered. Ask yourself: when a theory is countered by observation it must be modified to remain consistent with it, is there one and only one way in which a theory must be modified in response to observation, or are there many possibilities, but we choose the easiest one?

In a way I agree with you in that scientific method really does more of the second thing than the first. Scientific method gives a way to get repeat occurance and to more accuratly predict results of a given action.

Not everyone, even scientists, agrees with this.

Basically, if these are the types of questions that philosophers sit around and discuss, and if this is what they are useful for, then really there is no use at all, since your are asking questions that cannot possibly be answered at this time.

Try answering my question and we will see. And political and ethical questions can't be answered scientifically either, but that doesn't mean that they can't be answered. After all mathematical proofs are not conducted on the basis of empirical evidence.

So you would therefore agree with Asher that philosophy should not receive public funding then. Since public funding entitles the government to "meddle" with your feild. Also, you state that the only thing most philosophers end up doing is going on to teach, does this not imply that they really have no practicle use in society then?

Hardly, I said that government policy shouldn't meddle in university affairs. I don't accept that public funding entitles the government to meddle in anything without some supporting reasons, and even if it does entitle them to meddle in it, it doesn't mean that they should.

Anyway, GTG - I have to teach a class on John Stuart Mill.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

The liar isn't actually the problem, though. That's just the proof that Godel used. That interpretation is not necessary for the incompleteness of any axiomatic system; it's simply necessary to prove it.

I didn't say it was the problem in the sense I think you are interpreting me. I think it is a problem in its own right.

Which bit about knowledge are you referring to? The chapter I just finished was all about who was allowed to **** who.

The end of book 5 - it is not long now. You will know when you get there because you will go, "What the ****?"

Whose translation are you using. I like Bloom's because it sticks faithfully to the Greek, but there are a number of good ones (Cornford's and Lee's are to be avoided).

[KrazyHorse]

No clue. Don't have it with me today.

I think I nabbed it from my parents' place, so it was written in the early 70s or before. Has a brown cover and some of the translators' notes on what's to come in the next bit (both in terms of what he had to do to translate, and also the basic outline of the course the argument will take).

[Japher]

Of course it can be answered. Ask yourself: when a theory is countered by observation it must be modified to remain consistent with it, is there one and only one way in which a theory must be modified in response to observation, or are there many possibilities, but we choose the easiest one?

No. We do not always choose the easiest one. If a theory needs to be modified it is modified to account for the discrepency, and in some cases this may be done many ways, yet the easiest way may not account for all factors within the case studies. Also, theories can be disproven, yet still remain true if not properly analyzed. The biggest mistake most scientist make is that they fail to measure the correct factor when attempting to determine the cause.

Newton's Second Law of Motion: The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and is inversely proportional to its mass. The direction of the acceleration is in the direction of the applied net force.


I would imagine that when he presented this thoery some rather ignorant scientist went out to prove this for themselves. When they would try their results were did not concur with what was then a theory. Why? Because such laws and notions of friction, resistance, and drag coefficients did not exist. Yet, his theory still became law. Not because he changed the theory, but because other notions were applied in order to support the theory. What do you think will happen to this law if a case is found that counters F=ma? Would it be contributed to the system in which the experiment is being conducted or to the law itself?

I think quantum physics is the most recent scientific field of discovery that has had to deal with such corrections. While it seems easy now, it is only because we had a great scientist and philosopher develop it, maybe the greatest of both in recent times; Einstein. Yet, he didn't get a nobel prize for creating theories, hypothisizing, or philosophy of sciences. Or else his work in Special Relativity would of gotten him an award, not something as simple and perplexing as E=hf.

Thus, to try and answer the initial question of

"Do scientific theories provide us with truths about the universe (that is, are scientific theories realist in nature); or do scientific theories merely provide us with warranted assertions and the most useful explanation (that is, are scientific theories broadly anti-realist)."


Theories are the attempt of discerning the truths of the universe based on warrented assertions and the most useful explinations which are wholly real, not anti-realist. For reality is what you make it, and is defined by your system.

The whole burden of philosophy seems to consist in this--from the phenomena of motions to investigate the forces of nature and then from these forces to explain their nature.

-Isaac Newton

I like that.

[Provost Harrison]

[Japher]

just let it fade away then

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher


No. We do not always choose the easiest one. If a theory needs to be modified it is modified to account for the discrepency, and in some cases this may be done many ways, yet the easiest way may not account for all factors within the case studies. Also, theories can be disproven, yet still remain true if not properly analyzed. The biggest mistake most scientist make is that they fail to measure the correct factor when attempting to determine the cause.

That's kind of what I meant, except that I have reason to believe that the evidence is always underdetermined by theory. This is a radical claim, but I have good reason to believe that it applies - we don't think it does because we are used to changing our theories in certain ways (for example, if I go outside and can't see my mailbox, I assert that it has been stolen, not that it has been abducted by aliens, even though both assertions are consistent with the absence of the box. It is just that it disturbs my overall view of the world much less to believe that it was stolen).

I would imagine that when he presented this thoery some rather ignorant scientist went out to prove this for themselves. When they would try their results were did not concur with what was then a theory. Why? Because such laws and notions of friction, resistance, and drag coefficients did not exist. Yet, his theory still became law. Not because he changed the theory, but because other notions were applied in order to support the theory. What do you think will happen to this law if a case is found that counters F=ma? Would it be contributed to the system in which the experiment is being conducted or to the law itself?

I have no disagreement with this claim. There are two possibilities for someone confronted with aberrant results. One is to complicate the overall theory by introducing these new entities, the and thus make it consistent, the other is to dump it (I suppose that a third is to blame faulty equipment, but I think that is a version of the first). I think that if the theory works out consistent with the evidence with the added qualifications then that is the way to go. When I say that we should choose the simplest theory, I mean in the face of the totality of evidence and perhaps I should qualify this further: the simplest theory consistent with the totality of evidence with the greatest predictive power.

I think quantum physics is the most recent scientific field of discovery that has had to deal with such corrections. While it seems easy now, it is only because we had a great scientist and philosopher develop it, maybe the greatest of both in recent times; Einstein. Yet, he didn't get a nobel prize for creating theories, hypothisizing, or philosophy of sciences. Or else his work in Special Relativity would of gotten him an award, not something as simple and perplexing as E=hf.

Fair enough, but regarding special relativity: one reaction to the Michelson-Morley experiment would have been to complicate the ether theory in such a way as to keep it (I think this would have required monumental conceptual shifts and other difficulties) but it was simpler just to dump the notion of ether.

Theories are the attempt of discerning the truths of the universe based on warrented assertions and the most useful explinations which are wholly real, not anti-realist. For reality is what you make it, and is defined by your system.

This is in fact a form of anti-realism. Systems change and we can change them - witness the move from Classical to Quantum physics - a classic case of Kuhnian paradigm shift.

[KrazyHorse]

I think this would have required monumental conceptual shifts and other difficulties

As opposed to the conceptual shift required by the Lorentz transformations?

Anyhow, the reason that Einstein didn't get the Nobel for what he most deserved it (GR) has nothing to do with the relative importance of his work on both matters (he was only of second-tier importance to quantum physics) and everything to do with the bias of the Nobel commitee against pure theorists.