Mentioning Phil phD's

[CyberGnu]

I actually got curious about that article by Paul Thagard.

Why is it published in a journal such as the one mentioned? I'm guessing that he couldn't get it published in a decent journal. So, to satisfy my curiosity, I looked up the impact factor of "philosophy of science". The impact factor is simply a measurement on how many times articles in the journal are cited by other articles - whether within the same journal or elsewhere. The higher the impact factor, the better the journal.

So, for example, the most important scientific publication, Nature, has an impact factor of 15.68 (as of 2001). Every article in nature is, on average, cited 15.68 times.

The foremost chemical journal, Journal of the American Chemical Society, has an impact factor of 4.88.

A second tier chemistry journal, Journal of Organic Chemistry, has an impact factor of 2.54.

A third tier chemistry journal, for example Tetrahedron, has an impact factor of 1.91.

Normally, anything below third tier is not worth reading. Even if I find an article in a below third tier journal it is usually a waste of my time.

Now, "philosophy of science" has an impact ratio of 0.55. That means that almost half the articles are never even cited once!

To find something of equal low quality in chemistry I had to go faaaaaaar down the list... To the reals of journals such as "Finnish Chemical Letters" and "Chemie Analen - Warsaw". None of them are published in english, BTW.

So, basically, "philosphy of science" has equal importance to society and science as an obscure journal in finnish... Wow...

I should also mention that "Philosophy of Science" has an "internal citation" factor of 0.88. This means that 88% of the articles that cite an article from "Philosophy of Science" are in the same field, which further reduces the actual value of the publication. An article in "Philosophy of Science" only has 0.12 * 0.55 = 0.066 (6.6%) chance of being cited in an actual science journal

Well, so far for the claim that it contributs to science. At least it provided me with a good laugh.

BTW, what is the official abbreviation of "Philosophy of Science"? "PoSe"?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
Arguing about whether or not reality exists is like arguing about whether or not God exists, or similar nonsense.

Has anybody actually ever actually progressed in these studies or is it simply a matter of belief?

Look, you've really misunderstood me. The point is about realism and anti-realism the notion of whether the meanings of the statements we make are tied to some form of evidence or whether they are not.

For example, an anti-realist has a good argument against the notion of God's existence precisely because he ties meaning to evidence (anti-realism is verificationist just like logical positivism). Since there is no evidence one way or another for the sentence "God exists" that sentence is meaningless - those who think it is making a claim are in fact mistaken.

There is a connection here between philosophy and science since many people think that our use of language in response to the environment must be tied in some interesting way to sensory stimulation - this being what prompts assent to sentences.

Anyway, goodnight.

[CyberGnu]

GePap:

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.

What does this prove, exactly?

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!

You actually believe that?

Well, that's part of the reason I left Europe

[CyberGnu]

Well I am quite prepared to agree that there is practical justification for using it - theoretical justification is something else entirely. You may not be interested in this but plenty of people are.

And those people are engaged in what real scientists refer to as "intellectual masturbation". It might feel nice, but it doesn't lead anywhere.

Well I thought the meanings of the statements were quite different, so it was rather a pointless question. Actually, looking at it, it is a completely pointless question.

Of course it is pointless. You can't answer it, so it is pointless. Ergo, of whatever you say.

I'd love to read some of your college essays as well...

[CyberGnu]

Throw off the yoke of philosophy? What yoke?

The yoke that said that if Arestotele says one thing, and observations say another, then observations are wrong.

You'd know if you'd studied any history of science

[CyberGnu]

BTW, what exactly is "cognitive science"?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I actually got curious about that article by Paul Thagard.

Why is it published in a journal such as the one mentioned? I'm guessing that he couldn't get it published in a decent journal. So, to satisfy my curiosity, I looked up the impact factor of "philosophy of science". The impact factor is simply a measurement on how many times articles in the journal are cited by other articles - whether within the same journal or elsewhere. The higher the impact factor, the better the journal.

So, for example, the most important scientific publication, Nature, has an impact factor of 15.68 (as of 2001). Every article in nature is, on average, cited 15.68 times.

The foremost chemical journal, Journal of the American Chemical Society, has an impact factor of 4.88.

A second tier chemistry journal, Journal of Organic Chemistry, has an impact factor of 2.54.

A third tier chemistry journal, for example Tetrahedron, has an impact factor of 1.91.

Normally, anything below third tier is not worth reading. Even if I find an article in a below third tier journal it is usually a waste of my time.

Now, "philosophy of science" has an impact ratio of 0.55. That means that almost half the articles are never even cited once!

To find something of equal low quality in chemistry I had to go faaaaaaar down the list... To the reals of journals such as "Finnish Chemical Letters" and "Chemie Analen - Warsaw". None of them are published in english, BTW.

So, basically, "philosphy of science" has equal importance to society and science as an obscure journal in finnish... Wow...

I should also mention that "Philosophy of Science" has an "internal citation" factor of 0.88. This means that 88% of the articles that cite an article from "Philosophy of Science" are in the same field, which further reduces the actual value of the publication. An article in "Philosophy of Science" only has 0.12 * 0.55 = 0.066 (6.6%) chance of being cited in an actual science journal

Well, so far for the claim that it contributs to science. At least it provided me with a good laugh.

BTW, what is the official abbreviation of "Philosophy of Science"? "PoSe"?

This doesn't strike me as wildly profound.

Um. I would think it wildly inappropriate that a philosophy of science article would be published in "Nature" so this doesn't surprise me at all. Most scientific research doesn't require philosophical input since most scientific publications report empirical results. Philosophy tends to be about conceptual inquiry. On the other hand scientific articles get reported in philosophy quite a lot (especially neuroscience stuff) because that is useful for solving the problems philosophers are interested in (that doesn't mean that they solve the problems, it means they contribute worthwhile information.

But generally disciplines stick to their own journals: although you will find reference to philosophers a lot in things like linguistics, cog sci and in psych (I'd like to see the figures on this).

[Asher]

I think you misunderstood his post.

[CyberGnu]

This doesn't strike me as wildly profound.

So you agree that you should have known your claims were bunk a long time ago? Well, that is a step forward, I suppose.

Um. I would think it wildly inappropriate that a philosophy of science article would be published in "Nature" so this doesn't surprise me at all. Most scientific research doesn't require philosophical input since most scientific publications report empirical results.

*sigh*
Which is the point. Science does not need philosophy. Whether philosophy uses science is completely irrelevant. You've basically set philosophy on the exact same level as I've claimed 15 pages ago: entertainment.

Science does not need entertainment. Entertainment does need science.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


The yoke that said that if Arestotele says one thing, and observations say another, then observations are wrong.

You'd know if you'd studied any history of science

Um - you know I'd agree with you on this one, but I'd like to report that Aristotle beating is a common pastime amongst scientists and it's not always done fairly. They often report him making strange claims that he never actually made.

But philosophy is a lot different than Aristotle and much friendlier to scientific thinking than you seem to think.

what is cognitive science?

The study of the human mind based on the "cognitive revolution". It is anti-behaviourist and engaged in the idea of thinking about the human mind as though it were a computer. It is sort of a mix between science, psych, linguistics, computer science and the philosophy of mind. It's a relatively new discipline and may well splinter off from all these departments.

The Thagard book I referred to earlier is an introductory text. I get the feeling that if you read it you might not be so harsh on philosophy. Philosophy of Mind is much more representative of what people are doing now than Aristotle. Only people like me - philosophers *** classicists *** historians of ideas - study Aristotle.

[CyberGnu]

But philosophy is a lot different than Aristotle and much friendlier to scientific thinking than you seem to think.

I don't think philosophy is against science. I just think it is irrelevant.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The study of the human mind based on the "cognitive revolution". It is anti-behaviourist and engaged in the idea of thinking about the human mind as though it were a computer.

What kind of a computer, digital or analog?

So it treats everything has either a 1 or a 0, right or wrong?

[CyberGnu]

Regarding cognitive science: thanks

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


So you agree that you should have known your claims were bunk a long time ago? Well, that is a step forward, I suppose.



*sigh*
Which is the point. Science does not need philosophy. Whether philosophy uses science is completely irrelevant. You've basically set philosophy on the exact same level as I've claimed 15 pages ago: entertainment.

Um no. I'd attribute it to the fact that most scientific papers published are about concrete issues rather than the extremely abstract issues dealt with in the philosophy of science. Presumably the question "what is knowledge?" or the question "is theory underdetermined by evidence?" is relevant to any scientific project. Scientists don't tend to worry about this - most of them are like Frogger, quite happy to potter along conducting experiments without worrying about such things - it is after all a very pragmatically oriented enterprise (and that is how it should be). That doesn't mean that thinking about the grounds of scientific truth is a waste of time.

After all the claim "science does not need philosophy to keep conducting experiments and publishing papers" is different from the claim, "science does not need philosophy to think about problems like induction". Scientists ignore the problem of induction (rightly so, or they'd never get any work done) but it would be nice to solve it for it would provide a knock down argument against those people who want to equate the current scientific faith in induction to other more dubious sorts of faith.

[KrazyHorse]

most of them are like Frogger, quite happy to potter along conducting experiments

If you call me an experimentalist again, then I'm going to stop fooling around and start arguing for real.