Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Tuberski


I know that, just a bit of sarcasm, they have that in philosophy don't they?

ACK!

Actually, if I was more awake I would have said, "not at all".

[CyberGnu]

The answer to the second is relatively easy - because you can't reasonably doubt it, that's how you can know you exist.

Intriguing. So the answer to the question: 'What makes this statement different from "xxx"?' is "because you can't reasonably doubt it, that's how you can know you exist."

Well, I guess this is the state of the art in contemporary philosophy.

Well well, this counts as a rapier-like argument.

Ahh, nothing like sarcasm coming from someone who didn't understand the question...

Followup question: Should your preceding statement be read with the accent of Valley Girl or Hick?

[GePap]

PHILOSOPHY, PHILOSOPHY, YEAH YEAH YEAH!!!
{points to avatar}

Philosophy is the fundamental science. Greece is seen as the birthplace of the west ebcause of..its philosophy. All "scientist" were philosophers, and thus why a phD is the original dgree given by universities. Any university worth a damn would make all students take philosophy. I went to a University that forces its students to take, no matter what their major is, classes in the humanities, sciences, and social sciences (many of whihc my university helped to make academic professions) to make them well rounded individuals able to at elast have a cursory understanding of any field. The more fields you understand the better, for all fields are fundamentally interrelated.

Lets be honest: Science Geeks make stuff, but it is the philosophers and social scientist who decide how it is used. Now who has the power?

[CyberGnu]

Yeah right. How can the scientific method be the justification of believing that the scientific method works. Classic question begging behaviour.

The advances of the modern age are due to the scientific method. Consequently, it works. Amazing how simple that was, yes?

Unless, of course, you want to postulate that your computer doesn't exist.

[Agathon]

Of course none of this has any scientific import at all.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/journal/contents/v69n3.html

[CyberGnu]

And what does that have to do with what goes on in contemporary philosophy - absolutely nothing.

It ilustrates how science how to actually THROW OFF the yoke of the philosophers in order to get something useful done.

[KrazyHorse]

Out of the 90 credits which makes up a full course load for the standard period to graduate, 81 credits were mandated by my undergraduate program.

The only way they could have forced me to take a smattering of other courses would have been to devalue the primary purpose of my education: to make me a theoretical physicist...

[GePap]

Speak of the devil.

[CyberGnu]

Get real. And cognitive scientists don't go on about this in useless treatises do they? Please don't try and bring up rationalist metaphysics as a characterisation of contemporary philosophy - it has been out of favour for a very long time now.

Pray tell, what are you talking about?

What has any of this got to do with "philosophy of science"?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon
Of course none of this has any scientific import at all.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHI...nts/v69n3.html

Do philosophers always mix up terms?

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/journal/issues/v69n3/690306/690306.html

Such a characterization is claimed to be too wide because given two structures of the same cardinality, there are always isomorphisms holding between them

Untrue. There is always a bijection holding between two structures of identical cardinality. This is the definition of cardinality, BTW.

Isomorphism is a much stronger concept, implying that the bijection you find preserves the relationships between the parts (i.e. in a group isomorphism it will preserve I(a+b) = I(a) + I(b)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Frogger
Out of the 90 credits which makes up a full course load for the standard period to graduate, 81 credits were mandated by my undergraduate program.

The only way they could have forced me to take a smattering of other courses would have been to devalue the primary purpose of my education: to make me a theoretical physicist...

If you decide to become a theoretical physicist, you should suffer for it: all the ones i knew did.

[CyberGnu]

GePap:

That was ~2400 years ago.

I'll happily agree that philosophy was vitally important for the development of science in the ancient world. But just as the T-ford was vital for the development of the car, there is no reason to keep the T-ford around.

[KrazyHorse]

I did suffer.

Oh, the pain and suffering...and there's still the little matter of deciding on and writing a thesis.

My point is that some of us don't have the luxury of time to diddle around with Psych 101 classes...

[GePap]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
GePap:

That was ~2400 years ago.

I'll happily agree that philosophy was vitally important for the development of science in the ancient world. But just as the T-ford was vital for the development of the car, there is no reason to keep the T-ford around.

And the single most important event in the story of mankind happened 10,000 years ago (agriculture and animal husbandry). Until you science eggsheads come up with somethign as fundamental, don't go harping about time.
As I said: you guys may make all new stuff, but it is us philosophers, humanists, and social scientist who come up whith what they should be used for. We also pay your bills (lawyers make the tax code, the law and hence control the money) so pipe down, or you will get no funding!

Frogger:
I knew many top notch math and sciece people who did: it just is a matter of te institution you join. Everyone can have 25 hours of homework a day!

[KrazyHorse]

GePap: I literally had 3 optional half-year courses to use in 3 years of university...