I honestly believed.

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I wouldve said philosophy is a precursor to science.

For example; astronomy was a philosophical pursuit until it was "proven".
but astrology is only suitable for study by philosphists and socilogists.

at the time when "natural Philosophers" were scientific researchers, alchemy was considered a cutting edge discipline, bloodletting was the height of medical science, and trepanation was recommended for removing evil spirits from the minds of crazy people and those with flatulence.

the physical sciences have been divorced from philosophy for so long, the kids have all grown up and had kids of their own, the dog has been dead for 30 years and the lawyers have long since taken the summer house, the boat and the frequent flier miles. who knows, maybe there will be a golden years retirement home reconciliation, but it's doubtful.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
If he was a philosopher and not an anatomist, why vivisect anything?
and charlie manson was a songwriter. why should he become a cult leader if he has a sweet gig writing lyrics for the beach boys?

answer to both questions: because those jobs didnt pan out, so they both fell back on their real avocations.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I think it still is. I prefer the sobriquet "natural philosopher" to "scientist". For too many, a scientist has become a priest of the Current Truth. "Natural philosopher" is pompous at first glance, but the humbler choice when one thinks it through. Jmo. cn
[video=youtube;tl4VD8uvgec]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec[/video]
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
That's not a job. It isn't a job creator either.
i dunno, if i had a couple million bucks i'd buy a good sized farm, and hire some hands to help me work it,

millionaires can be "job creators" if they put their money to work.

somebody has to care for mitt's dancing horse, and that means a job for somebody.

somebody also has to pleasure his wife, and that means a really shitty job for somebody. but that job probably went to an illegal.

the very definition of "jobs americans dont want"
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
but astrology is only suitable for study by philosphists and socilogists.

at the time when "natural Philosophers" were scientific researchers, alchemy was considered a cutting edge discipline, bloodletting was the height of medical science, and trepanation was recommended for removing evil spirits from the minds of crazy people and those with flatulence.

the physical sciences have been divorced from philosophy for so long, the kids have all grown up and had kids of their own, the dog has been dead for 30 years and the lawyers have long since taken the summer house, the boat and the frequent flier miles. who knows, maybe there will be a golden years retirement home reconciliation, but it's doubtful.
The word "scientist" was coined in 1834. You're miscuing by about 200 years.
And the physical sciences have never been divorced from philosophy. They have their own distinct epistemology. Imo the doctrine that science would leave philosophy behind is a symptom of the pathology: scientism. cn
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
The word "scientist" was coined in 1834. You're miscuing by about 200 years.
And the physical sciences have never been divorced from philosophy. They have their own distinct epistemology. Imo the doctrine that science would leave philosophy behind is a symptom of the pathology: scientism. cn
cool, i like to learn somethin new everyday.

but while i was lookin that up (normally your word is good enough but i was curious)i read this in passing:


"Philosophy can be seen as a distinct activity, which is aimed towards a more comprehensive understanding of intangible aspects of reality and experience that cannot be physically measured.

Scientists are also distinct from engineers, those who develop devices that serve practical purposes. When science is done with a goal toward practical utility, it is called applied science (short of the creation of new devices that fall into the realm of engineering). When science is done with an inclusion of intangible aspects of reality it is called natural philosophy." ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist


i pooped a little.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
metaphysics is no part of philosophy
dude, metaphysics is one of the foundations of philosophy.

there are basically three parts of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, and semantics.

what is there, how can we know, and how do we talk about it.

philosophy can be applied to anything, as in the philosophy of science or the philosophy of medicine or the philosophy of cannabis growing or the philosophy of golf.

that doesn't take away the science of science, or the science of medicine or the science of cannabis growing or the science of golf.

but i know you birchers have some kooky ideas of your own and don't mind parading them around. like, literally, in parades and shit.

they never would tell me about the fluoride conspiracy when i asked them though. they just got all uncomfortable and went back to polishing their signs about their religious liberty being under attack because birth control pills were being treated as the preventive medicine that they are.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
cool, i like to learn somethin new everyday.

but while i was lookin that up (normally your word is good enough but i was curious)i read this in passing:


"Philosophy can be seen as a distinct activity, which is aimed towards a more comprehensive understanding of intangible aspects of reality and experience that cannot be physically measured.

Scientists are also distinct from engineers, those who develop devices that serve practical purposes. When science is done with a goal toward practical utility, it is called applied science (short of the creation of new devices that fall into the realm of engineering). When science is done with an inclusion of intangible aspects of reality it is called natural philosophy." ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist


i pooped a little.
I suspect a bit of word wrangling by folks who are so terribly very modern. Science and natural philosophy are one and the same in my book. I am somewhat bemused by the rather self-unserving definition of philosophy pinned to intangibles. Fwiw. cn
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I suspect a bit of word wrangling by folks who are so terribly very modern. Science and natural philosophy are one and the same in my book. I am somewhat bemused by the rather self-unserving definition of philosophy pinned to intangibles. Fwiw. cn
I consider it to be the same sort of backward thinking that would demand that academia accept flat earth doctrine.
 
Top