I’m a professor of philosophy. What is philosophy good for? Sounds like a deep question—too deep for me.
Mark a few distinctions, clarify a few concepts—it’s a living.
In the above, you might be sounding like a parasite. But are you in fact?
-FrL-
Yes. I’m a parasitic professor of philosophy.
I don’t think you’re a parasite.
–Making good distinctions and clarifying concepts are just exactly what is needed in order to write a good memo, and in order to write a good scientific report, and so on. If you teach these things, then you’ve done a service to your society.
–I actually don’t think you’re in the business just of clarifying concepts, but in fact, I think you’re in the business of forging concepts. This is not often a necessary or important task. But it sometimes is, and it is important that people be equipped to deal with the fallout from concept creation when those times do come.
Well, that’s what I suspect.
-FrL-
A practical use for philosophy - artificial inteligence.
… and philosophy makes for a good read.
Not sure if that one was buried in the posts above - I only skimmed them.
Actually, you might want to rethink that. Thomas Kuhn wrote that science doesn’t really build one past knowledge it replaces it altogether, a paradigm shift. For example, the work of Copernicus and and Galileo didn’t really build upon the works of those using the Ptolemaic system of geocentrism, instead it completely changed the way we looked at the solar system. So instead of building upon the old system we tear them down and build a new system.
After checking online it looks like Kuhn’s book is called The Structures of Scientific Revolution.
Marc
What Lib said.
Philosophy means, “Love of Knowledge”: in its original sense one might as well ask what knowledge is good for.
Still, it’s fair to ask the followup question: what good is modern philosophy for? Generally speaking, I’d say that it’s not as useful as it once was, after it evolved into a nonempirical discipline.
Still, modern philosophers have said a few interesting things about consciousness, for example. Philosophical thinking is arguably a sound training method for college students, whether they become lawyers, scientists, businesspeople, some combination thereof, or whatever.
And somehow I think it appropriate for some to write about such issues as what science is (and what it should be) or the meanings of terms like “cause”, “fairness” or even “intrinsic vs. extrinsic value”.
I think a lot of people don’t like philosophy because they’re under the impression that it’s all about “you do not exist” or “nothing is real” baloney.
Marc
The study of Philosophy is extremely good mental exercise. When someone offers what he thinks is a new philosophy, it is incumbent upon him to show how it offers something new. He essentially has to deconstruct other philosophies and show how he offers a better alternative. Rigorous study is required and very careful logical progression has to follow.
He knows critics will be meticulous in reading and commenting on his conclusions. It can be very challenging.
There is the point of view that science doesn’t tell us what is right but it does tell us what is definitely wrong. The paradigm shifts usually arise because the old method gets further and further out of whack with experience. That is a form of building on the past in that certain things are ruled out as definitely wrong.
The Copernican case doesn’t quite fit this because at first the Ptolomaic system was closer to experience. However, building on Copernicus, others modified his model from circles to ellipses and that along with the simplicity of the Copernican model led to the replacement of Ptolomy.
Plus, there is some consensus out there that Kuhn was a quack. See Stove and others.
Please clarify what you mean by “some consensus.”
-FrL-
And by “quack.”
Kuhn might have overstated his case or maybe even been flat out wrong, but he’s taken very seriously in Philosophy of Science. He’s no more a quack than Spinoza or Berkeley.
That’s what the “See Stove and others” was for.
He’s influential, anyway. I don’t know that I would point to any sort of monolythic Philosophy of Science (written as a proper name, no less). Academia is sometimes pretty slow on the uptake.
Did you know that the thread title is actually the same title that Kant had originally given his work “Kritik der Reinen Vernunft”?
Stela! Stellllllllllllllllllla!
I’d like to know what you meant by “some consensus,” the reason for this being, that upon following up on the reference to Stove, I did not get the idea that there is anything I would call “some consensus” that Kuhn was a quack.
You might have just meant “there is some group of people amongst whom there is a consensus that…” but that is not saying much. Did you mean to say more than that?
-FrL-
I’m not sure casting this as a debate over the worth of philosophy was really such a good idea. Philosophy is so broad and vague a term that it could encompass almost anything involving reflective thought about things.
Of course there’s no monolithic Philosophy of Science. It’s just an area of study, like meta-ethics or rational decision theory or formal logic. Maybe it doesn’t deserve capital letters. Whatever. All I meant is that Kuhn’s philosophy is taken seriously as a live contender in the field, even if it is a minority view. It’s not taken as generally refuted, as, say, positivism is. I really don’t see how anyone could possibly make the case that Kuhn is a quack. That he’s wrong, sure, lots and lots of people argue that all the time. But there’s no such thing as a philosopher that lots of people don’t argue is wrong. Kuhn’s arguments are by no means easy to refute, and he’s easily in the top 10 most influential thinkers of the last century. He is, I repeat, no more a quack than a Spinoza or Berkeley.