[ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy

[William Flynn Wallace]

I disagree, I think
​​ t
he line is easy to draw
​
. All science is philosophy but not all philosophy is science; a dope at a
bar pontificating on the meaning of life is philosophy but not science.
John

Is there any reason to think that Aristotle/Bacon, many others,  would not
be hard-nosed scientists today?  Many ideas started in philosophy and made
their way into natural philosophy/science.  No argument, right?  Is there
any reason that cannot still happen?  No.

Let them be gadflies.  What's the harm?  If Dennett dreams up something
about consciousness that could really pan out, scientists will take the
ball and run with it and maybe score bigtime.

My favorite area of philosophy is morality.  Many social psychologists have
taken philosophical ideas and turned them into good science.

The idea of the unconscious started in philosophy, was popularized by Freud
and Jung, and is now an immense part of brain science.

No question John is right about accomplishments.

bill w

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:14 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016  Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ​>> ​
>>> no philosopher has made a philosophical discovery in centuries, only
>>> mathematicians and scientist do that.    ​
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> That's doubtful. Theory of reference and intentionality were big topics
>> from the end of the 19th century to today.
>>
>
> And what original philosophical discoverie in "the theory of reference and
> intentionality" did all those philosophers make
> ​in the last 200 years ​
> that were comparable to Maxwell's philosophical discovery concerning the
> nature of light, or Darwin's discovery of Evolution, or Planck's discovery
> of the quantum, or Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe, or Watson
> and Crick's discovery of the genetic code, or Einstein's discovery of
> warped spacetime
> ​, or LIGO's recent detection of gravitational waves caused by merging
> Black Holes
> ?
> ​For that matter, ​w
> hat exactly do we know about "reference and intentionality" today that we
> didn't know in the 19th century?
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> I still get the idea that your view of philosophy is something like
>> seeing some dope at the bar telling what he feels the meaning of life is.
>>
>
> ​That is not my view of philosophy, but it IS my view of philosophers.
> There is no contradiction because, as I said before, philosophers haven't
> done any philosophy in centuries. ​
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> Where does science end and philosophy begin in all that? The line might
>> be hard to draw
>>
>
> I disagree, I think
> ​​ t
> he line is easy to draw
> ​
> . All science is philosophy but not all philosophy is science; a dope at a
> bar pontificating on the meaning of life is philosophy but not science.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160401/b7ab4ce0/attachment.html>