Mentioning Phil phD's

[Japher]

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.

Possibly. I do concur that relativity was of monumental importance and presented a shift in modern scientific paradigm, IMO. Yet I don't think it is the intention of such commitees to award prizes in science (and peace) to those who merely have an idea, more so those who are able to exercise those ideas. Something which, philosophy, on it's own, is incapable of on a realistic basis.

I still, however, feel that philosophy is nothing unless applicable to a field of practicle use and importance. This type of statement in no way underminds the importance of philosophy, it is just that I feel it has its place, and should not be a stand alone entity. In away, I seem to think that it's importance has been drasitcally understated.

I for one, feel that a philosophy maybe should of been a required course for all fields in college. If that were made so, then I think it's importance at a public institution would be more readily evident.

The applications of abstract thought.

[KrazyHorse]

It was their way of not looking ridiculous by not awarding the greatest physicist since Newton the Nobel Prize, but at the same time not opening the door for more theorists...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger

Originally posted by notyoueither
You mean like Newton?

Newton's philosophy was crap, yes.

It's a shame he spent so much time on alchemy and theology. What a waste...

Newton's philosophy was crap?

What was the title of that book again?

[KrazyHorse]

"Natural Philosophy" != philosophy

At least not in the modern sense. The natural philosophers broke off and became "physicists" sometime around the beginning of the 20th century...

[notyoueither]

Oh really?

And logic is not philosophy? Ethics?

Most importantly, what did Newton consider himself to be?

[KrazyHorse]

Most importantly, what is he by today's standards?

A mathematician and a physicist.

What is someone who studies logic? A logician.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Logicians are Philosophers, Frogger.

[KrazyHorse]

So if philosophers want to do science and still call themselves philosophers, then that's fine with me. And that's the day that I'll accept Newton as a philosopher.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Logicians are Philosophers, Frogger.

Not the ones I know. They spend their time in the math departments up here...

[KrazyHorse]

Especially when they're doing things that are worthwhile...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
Most importantly, what is he by today's standards?

A mathematician and a physicist.

What is someone who studies logic? A logician.

How very present-centred of you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Frogger, isn't the invention of logic, itself, due to philosophical thinking? After all during the 'Dark Ages' the logic of the Roman Era was derided. It was up to European philosophers (some in the Church itself) to bring it back.

[KrazyHorse]

The standard rules of formal logic is the best example of what "philosophy" has given to "science".

But the modern study of logic, exemplified best by a man like Godel is a growth of the study of mathematics. Which used to be part of "philosophy" but which is no longer, given that the responsibility for its subject matter was split into 3 or more main branches...

NYE: "a rose by any other name"

Physicists, mathematicians and modern philosophers all have their roots in the ancient study of "philosophy". But a man like Newton was a physicist and a mathematician first and foremost. His study of the subjects which are today considered part of philosophy was tangential and fairly useless.

To say that philosophers of today have their existence justified by the work of a man who studied subjects which they are not competent in is to fall into the traps of a changing language...

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Agathon:
There is another solution that harmonises your position with proper public funding.

Not all research has a direct application, though future research will often rely upon a previously useless discovery.

Therefore, it stands to reason that disinterested inquiry can produce definitive benefits not sought by the original researcher. This is why you fund philosophy, in that leaving the philosophers alone, they come up with something others find useful.

No field can properly operate without some form of philosophy, be it ethics, or otherwise. In asking questions about these moral concepts, philosophers can unearth presuppositions and assumptions previously unchallenged.

So there you go. Two 'real world' benefits of disinterested philosophical discourse.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Frogger, isn't the invention of logic

If by invention of logic, you mean the formalization of logic, then yes we have Philosophy to thank for it.

Thankfully the more specific fields today have different definitions of logic, aside from what's used in Philosophy. Hell, from what I've seen from the philosophy of logic courses, they're lost in their own chaotic mess of laughable axioms and formality with logic, and they keep making more...

Stuff like De Morgan's law is certainly useful and boolean algebra in general is certainly useful, but you don't need a philosophy department for that. Hell, they teach that in high school computer science here.