| | >Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
| | >> Luckily, scientists do not pay attention
| | >> to any of the philosophy of science crap :)
| | >-----------------
| | >You're ass-backwards, they ALL adhere
| | >to Philosophy/Theory of Science
| | >or they are NOT Scientists, by definition.
| | This is nonsense. There is no such definition.
| | Sure, scientists adhere to the scientific
| | method. But that is not at all the same
| | as adhering to what goes under the name
| | "philosophy of science".
| Hi Neil,
| It's important to recognize what Philosophy
| does - it is Philosophy that routinely ventures,
| willingly, into uncharted 'areas', typically, be-
| fore other disciplines recognize that there's
| stuff out-there that is not yet Reified.
| And I'm not saying that only Professional
| Philosophers do such.
| Even a Mathematician or a Physicist must
| become a Philosopher' when she or he
| encounters show-stopping stuff with respect
| to their accepted positions.
| When such occurs, the accepted stuff, while
| remaining the accepted stuff, gets set aside
| in favor of 'free-form' exploring of the show-stop-
| ping stuff - a search for clues - the seeking of a
| toe hold upon which formal structure can be
| When such happens, whoever is involved be-
| comes a Philosopher - venturing, willingly, into
| uncharted 'territory'.
| Philosophy gets a toe hold, and then other
| disciplines apply their standardized tools to
| what Philosophy has uncovered.
| This post, to counter, a bit, the recent tendency
| here in c.ai.ph toward using "Philosophy" as a
| It isn't any such thing.
| When it's out-there in uncharted 'territory', it's
| arduous work that is inherently respectable,
| and not at all for the weak-kneed.
| K. P. Collins
Gregor Mendel was a Monk, but he
became a Philosopher when he went
into uncharted 'territory' to Reify
the fundamentals that have become
He was working as an Amateur, not a Pro.
Galileo was a Pro-Mathematician, but
he became a Philosopher when he went
into uncharted 'territory' to establish the
fundamentals of what has become the
Scientific Method, and again when he
applied his resort to experiment to the
rates of falling bodies, and again when
he looked around for what he could do
with a telescope and discovered the
moons of Jupiter.
He was working as an Amateur, not a Pro.
Newton, finding himself in need of fleeing
the Plague, filled his 'time' with [Natural]
Philosophy, working relatively-alone at a
country estate, as an Amateur, going into
uncharted 'territory', and plucking the Jewels
of Classical 'gravity', and his Laws of Motion
out of the nothingness.
Although he Published, Darwin remained a
Life-long Amateur because his subject was
'two'-hot-to-handle. He was a Philosopher,
relative, to the status quo, because, although
he developed his own 'charts', he was pretty
'lonely' in the following of them/
Einstein, working at a Swiss Patent Office,
and doing Relativity, photoelectricity, etc.,
wasn't, then, a Pro Physicist. He was a
Philosopher, venturing forth into uncharted
'territory' to discover Jewel-stuff.
This sort of 'break' with Professionalism is
always right-there in the midst of Progress.
And it's always more Philosophy than
Because it's Philosophy, alone, that ventures
into the uncharted 'territory' - even, as I discussed
in my prior post, when the existence of the
'uncharted territory' 'pops-up' be-cause of a
'show-stopper' within a Professional realm.
If she or he is going to overcome the 'show-
stopper', the Professional becomes a
Philosopher - throwing off 'constraint',
venturing boldly into the unknown in order to
'move toward' Truth which only dimly glimmers
in the unwieldy-ness of the 'show-stopper'.
Anything else 'takes the charts along', and
follows them, where Philosophy allows the
'charts' to be left, =Respectfully=, on the
shelf, and ventures forth to see what's not,
But if the 'charts' are not left behind, and if
they're followed, then the 'explorer' isn't actually
Exploring. He or she is just following the charts,
and will go where they dictate - which dictates
the perpetuation of the 'show-stopper'.
Anything else has to 'fear for its hide' with
respect to Pro-specialization's coersed-
Given that it's been so blatently so, it's
'hilarious' that Pro-Science hasn't gotten-
it with respect to Philosophy, no?
Forgive me, Please.
I mean no 'offense'.
I mean 'just'-the-Opposite stuff.
'moving toward' Truth is everything.
To so 'move' Freely, absence-of-'chains'
is a great Boon.
Why what's here is so seemingly-
'offensive' is explained in AoK.
Anyway, saying that this or that is "just
philosophy" is "sour grapes" stuff [AoK,
Ap7; "volitional diminishing-returns
decision" thresholds set 'two'-low.
What's really 'hilarious' is that folks
use language of "convenience" to 'justify'
V D-R thresholds, because anyone who l
ooks can see that the Ravaging of
Humanity that derives in such
is the Ultimate 'inconvenience'.
So, go ahead, Dare to be Philosopher.
Don't 'burn' them, but do Dare to 'put-aside'
the 'charts' [canned modus operandi].
And Dare to allow others to also do so.
When the dust of your venturing settles.
the 'charts' will still be there in their
K. P. Collins