[ExI] Can philosophers produce scientific knowledge?

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Thu May 6 15:29:44 UTC 2021


What I don't get out of that quote by Gillis is whether the philosophers
proceed to do the actual research their proposal suggests.   bill w

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:26 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> I've always considered the difference between scientific and philosophical
> claims to be experimental falsifiability.
> Is that not right?
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:30 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18972/1/Pradeu-Lemoine-Khelfaoui-Gingras_Philosophy%20in%20Science_Online%20version.pdf
>>
>> Abstract:
>>
>> Most philosophers of science do philosophy ‘on’ science. By contrast,
>> others do philosophy ‘in’ science (‘PinS’), i.e., they use philosophical
>> tools to address scientific problems and to provide scientifically useful
>> proposals. Here, we consider the evidence in favour of a trend of this
>> nature. We proceed in two stages. First, we identify relevant authors and
>> articles empirically with bibliometric tools, given that PinS would be
>> likely to infiltrate science and thus to be published in scientific
>> journals (‘intervention’), cited in scientific journals (‘visibility’) and
>> sometimes recognized as a scientific result by scientists (‘contribution’).
>> We show that many central figures in philosophy of science have been
>> involved in PinS, and that some philosophers have even ‘specialized’ in
>> this practice. Second, we propose a conceptual definition of PinS as a
>> process involving three conditions (raising a scientific problem, using
>> philosophical tools to address it, and making a scientific proposal), and
>> we ask whether the articles identified at the first stage fulfil all these
>> conditions. We show that PinS is a distinctive, quantitatively substantial
>> trend within philosophy of science, demonstrating the existence of a
>> methodological continuity from science to philosophy of science.
>> ——————
>> CHT William Gillis
>>
>> Haven’t finished the paper yet, but not really surprised.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210506/9e5b35f6/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list