Talk:Philosophy of science/Archive 4

Social Constructs
"although on this account science is socially constructed, it does not follow that reality is a social construct"

Um... YES IT DOES. A social construct is a thing that is socially constructed. It don't get much clearer than that. I also followed to suggested link to the science studies article, but the issue wasn't discussed at all.

If nobody backs this up, I'm deletin'.
 * But you will leave your entry on falsifiability? Interesting. It seems fairly plain to me that, that science is a social construct does not imply that the rock on my front lawn is also a social construct. But you are quite right that the article needs citations. Banno 07:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay... I assumed that "reality" = "scientific reality," and that the article was making an incredibly stupid point... but you're right that there might be other senses of "reality." Now I'm wondering about relevance, but whatever.
 * As far as falsifiability, I figure that's for you people to delete. I didn't do a particularly good job of it, but I thought the article needed more emphasis on the fact that Popper's position is hardly a consensus in phil of science.  I have the impression that a lot of people who are vaguely informed on PoS think that's the case.

Rutgers University Professor Sources
Here are some online sources for papers and other information from Professor's at Rutgers:


 * Rutgers Philosophy Homepage - go to Courses, and then course webpages for syllabi and readings provided by professors
 * Steven Stich's Webpage
 * Frank Arntzenius's website

Note: These sites may change significantly every semester. --165.230.46.67 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Branch of Analytic Philosophy or of Philosophy in General
Someone removed information about this being a brnach of Analytic philosophy. Of the two major contemporary western philosophies, Analytic and Continental only one has such a discipline called "Philosophy of Science".

It is incorrect then to characterise this as a branch of Continental philosophy.

--Lucas


 * That is patently false.

1. As a previous reverter noted, if PoS is a branch of analytic philosophy, then the section on continental philosophy of science should be deleted. But that would be ridiculous.

2. If you look at the analytic philosophy page, you'll notice that it defines analytic philosophy as the tradition extending from Russell and Moore. If you look at the list of philosophers of science on this page, you'll notice that MOST of them are not descendants of those figures nor focused on the kind of linguistic analysis which has characterized analytic philosophy through the twentieth century.

3. In the same vein, work in philosophy of science is diverse, and contra Lucaas there are a lot of philosophers of science who take philosophers not in the analytic tradition, like Husserl, Foucault, Peirce, Aristotle (e.g. Cartwright on capacities), Kant, Latour, Kuhn, etc., as their most significant precursors, continental thinkers NOT anglo-american linguistic analysis, which is to say, analytic philosophy.

4. It's also absurd to suggest that there was no ancient philosophy of sciece; see Aristotle.

5. If philosophy of science is a branch of analytic philosophy, are Whewell, Herschel, Mach, Poincaré not philosophers of science? (Bogus.)

6. The implication that philosophy of science need be a branch off most or all those other branches Lucaas names (ancient, continental, etc.) in order not to be a branch of philosophy more general is confused.

7. Philosophy at present simply does not divide neatly between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. So please stop changing 'Philosophy' in the first sentence to 'Analytic Philosophy.' All the other editors (not including me until just now) have been right to revert that. CHE 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is patently false (this I quote).

1. One can still have a section called on continental phil, within a branch of analytic. It is not a problem. It is another matter to try talk of "Continental Philosophy of Science" as though it were a discipline within it. In Continental Philosophy such a branch as "phil of sci" is rejected. Nor is there such a discipline in Eastern or Greek philosophy. In other words, there is no such discipline except in Analytic.

2. Analytic does not only include philosophy from Russell and Moore. It includes also Mill, Kant, and most major philosophers prior to Kant, eg, Occam, Plato etc.

3. You suggest "Phil of Sci" includes "Husserl, Foucault, Kant, Kuhn". Apart from Kuhn none of these were doing the "Phil of Science" as if it were anything other than philsophy in general. As to Kuhn, he is well within the Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine, definitions of Analytic. This is also clear from the wiki article on Kuhn.

4. Is it absurd to suggest there was no ancient phil of sci? From within the Analytic branch it is absurd, perhaps, but not from outside Analytic where there is no such discipline. It is absurd to apply a distincly contemporary term to ancient philosophy, as though they were consciously doing "phil of sci" and would not deny such a categorisation. Especially, for example, when Socrates explicitly rejects science when setting out to institute philosophy in the first place. That is philsophy as something other than science.

5. Whewell, Herschel, Mach, Poincaré, were more correctly doing philosophy from within science. Though they have been taken up by analytic philosophy of science. Just as Leibniz is taken up in the Analytic tradition by Russell does not make Leibniz Analytic it does however include Leibniz in the analytic tradition.

6. To be a branch of philosophy in general would be to assume that philosophy in general considered it a branch. If, however, most of philosophy, except for Analytic, denied such a branch then it would be incorrect to attribute it as anything other than a branch of Analytic.

7. There is quite a wide open gape, a clear broad gap between continental and analytic, more than ever before. So along with other editors I ask you to stop removing the term anaytic that was on this page since I repeat it is not a branch of Continental nor Eastern philosophy.

--Lucas

A similar discussion (and series of reversions) is occurring at Talk:Philosophy of mathematics, which is also not a subfield of Analytic Phil. JJL 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For information, in fr:wikipedia it was decided to put Philosophy of Sciences as a branch of "Épistémologie", even if Philosophy of Sciences is kept also in the category "Branch of philosophy" to allow good surfing. Chrisdel 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lucaas's first main reason why philosophy of science is not a branch of philosophy--the reason cited in Lucaas's changes--is that it is not a branch of those other branches of philosophy like continental and eastern. By this reasoning, ancient philosophy is not a branch of philosophy either, because it is not a branch of eastern philosophy. But you've already told us that ancient philosophy IS a branch of philosophy, so you're contradicting yourself.


 * Lucaas's second main reason why philosophy of science is not a branch of philosophy is that "to be a branch of philosophy in general would be to assume that philosophy in general considered it a branch." Grammatical ambiguity here aside, philosophers in general DO consider philosophy of science a branch of philosophy--just not always a branch of their own branch of philosophy (if philosophy even divides up neatly into branches, which I doubt). Lucaas seems to be under the impression that something can only be a branch of philosophy if it is a branch of every sub-branch--analytic, continental, eastern, etc. Logic is a sub-branch of only some of those--maybe only one of those--and it's totally idiosyncratic and outside normal linguistic practice to say that because of that logic is not a branch of philosophy. Philosophy textbooks, well, suggest otherwise. CHE 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I note firstly that you do not answer points 1-7 above, I assume that you agree with all since they directly replied to your previous 1-7 and show clearly why the information should not be removed from the article.

1st main point: Your reasoning here is convoluted and you confuse yourself by equating everything to the same thing, a branch. I'm not interested as to whether or not Ancient philosophy is a branch of philosophy. I've also in the discussion above talked mainly of disciplines, that is something which universities actually teach separately, something that has its own staffing, may have its own qualifications, etc.

2nd, aside from the miswording here, I'd say that your assertion, "philosophers in general do consider philosophy of science a branch of philosophy" is merely assuming the very thing we seek to argue about. To be a branch of philosophy in general it must of course be considered as such by philosophy in general. What I say is that, yes, analytic philsophers consider it a branch, but no, continental philosophers do not. Therefore I refute you and say philsophers in general do not consider it a branch.

Now if both of these philosophers agreed that say, logic were a branch of philosophy, then I would say it might be a branch of philosophy in general, otherwise it is obviously only a branch for one of these two groups of philosophers. One should not misapproriate the general term for something which is only given value under lesser category.

--Lucas


 * Look, I'm not responding to all your individual points because they're beside the main point, not because I agree with everything you say. I'm trying to focus on the central issue. Lots of philosophers think that other parts of philosophy don't have much value. That's right. Some deconstructionists might think logic is of little value; some logicians might think ethics is of little value; some ethicists think philosophy of language is of little value, etc. However, any of those philosophers would have to be ABSOLUTELY LOOPY to think that those other areas are not areas of inquiry which philosophers pursue under the heading "philosophy." Whether you LIKE something or not is really not important to whether you recognize that it's something that, as a simple fact about academic departments and institutional structures and publications and course offerings, is practiced everywhere it occurs under the institutional heading of "Philosophy," as a purely descriptive matter. My Derridean, Heideggerian, and post-structuralist colleagues certainly recognize that I teach, practice, and write philosophy, regardless of whether or not it's their favorite part of philosophy. And so, to move past anecdote, let's look at The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The philosophy of science, as a distinct branch of philosophical inquiry, is of fairly recent origin" (VI, 289). CHE 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The 7 points made could not have been beside the issue since they responded directly to the 7 you initially made, now you move to another argument to try and force your own preference since those 7 failed. Anyhow let us, focus as you say.


 * ABSOLUTELY LOOPY is someone who thinks that just because his own area is important, say the "philosophy of initiation rights" that it should then become a branch of philosphy in general. As a branch of philosophy in general, this means that it would then be taught in almost all major philosophy departments the world over.


 * This would rightly be scoffed at, since it would better be studied in a holistic way as a part of (philosophy of) anthropology, ethics, ethnology or religion. So whether you like "Phil of Sci" or not, is not the issue.


 * The issue is, whether or not it is part of philosophy in general or a part of some some area within philosophy. Descriptively it is *within* philosophy, as you say, and it is described in brochures etc as within philosophy.  Nor would I deny that they do philosophy.  Nor do I have an issue with it being called "philosophy of science."  What I'm saying is that it is not a branch of philosophy in general.  Rather, it is a branch within the ambit of Analytic Philosophy.


 * --Lucas


 * I agree with Che, and I think most people would. Regardless of who's right, though, Lucas, don't you think there are bigger things to worry about than this technical terminological point? --User:anon 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not merely a technical point, it is a little like a disambiguation but more than that too. The removed information that we debate here indicated straight away to the reader that in contemporary philosophy there is a whole other tradition for the phil of science and that within that other tradition (which in the article is only pointed at in a subsection, in some attempt to include it as "phil of science"), there is no separated-out phil of science, it is part of philosophy proper and has connections with all kinds of other issues that precludes such a deep separation.
 * Lucas

The obvious question: Can you find a citation to support your claim? Banno 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume Banno means Lucaas, right? (I offered one brief one, above). CHE 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A citations I presume you mean to support the statement that phil of sci is a branch of philosophy in general. What I mean is how to cite for example that the philosophy of anthills is not a branch of analytic?  Not many analytic philosophers have denied it.


 * The best way to solve it is to go through the arguments. You will find that Che had 7 arguments at the start.  I refuted all 7.  He then shifted ground to other arguments.  Finally coming upon a novel argument, called "argumentum ad Absolutely loopy".

--Lucas

As has already been pointed out, this same discussion is going on at Talk:Philosophy of mathematics, and Lucaas's point here is wrong for all the same reasons that it is wrong there. It seems to me that, so long as no one is coming in on his side, and he can provide no citations to support his claim, that the issue ought to be considered settled, and that any more attempts by Lucaas to revert to "Analytic philosophy" rather than just "philosophy" ought to be considered vandalism, or at least needs to be dealt with using something from WP:DR. (Any suggestions about this? I've never had to deal with this kind of stubbornness before.) --The Hanged Man 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanged Man's point here is wrong almost entirely. Since no evidence is made even by three people now it shows that it must not be there. Unless you are attempting to re-write the entire history of philosophy by introducing these false "branches" to the main bulk of philosophy in general then refrain from repeating it and at least try and give some evidence. I consider it vandalism to just make up new main branches of philosophy willy-nilly. --Lucas

No; I mean can you find suitable sources that support your contention; or failing that, can you find other resources that list Phil of science specifically as a branch of analytic philosophy. If not, your position is original research. Banno 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, what has happened is that that article said a "branch of Analytic philosophy", this was then removed and someone said it was a main branch and discipline of philosophy in general, without any backup or citation. If you can cite somewhere to say this is so that is ok.


 * To do the reverse is to try and prove a negative. For example I say it is not a branch in Continental, you say find evidence that it is not a branch there, just like if I said there are no mallards in France, you would say find me no mallards in France.


 * Other pages do at least say branch of western philosophy or academic etc. see epsitemology where it declares it as a branch of western philosophy.

--Lucas


 * It is a commonplace to find it listed as a branch of philosophy. Do some research yourself. Your edit was unwarranted, and should have been removed. End of story. Banno 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Lucaas, your earlier numbered rebuttals don't strike me as refutations; but just to respond to them briefly: 1. If the section of this article on continental philosophy is not on continental philosophy of science (which I would dispute), but rather continental philosophy more generally, why does it belong in this article? 2. I agree that analytic philosophy takes all these philosophers to be its antecedents, but I think it is deeply idiosyncratic to treat Plato as an analytic philosopher himself. It's also belied by the degree to which many continental philosophers see Plato as a very important precursor. 3. Your comment that "none of these were doing the 'Phil of Science' as if it were anything other than philosophy in general" supports the standard view that philosophy of science is indeed part of philosophy; these figures were engaging philosophically with science, within the philosophical tradition--which is to say, engaging in philosophy of science. Philosophy of science after all IS part of philosophy in general! 4. I have a hard time understanding Aristotle's prescriptions for good science as anything other than philosophy of science--a philosophical account of science; I did not name Socrates as an example for the good reasons you note. If "it is absurd to apply a distinctly contemporary term to ancient philosophy", how is it that you write, just seven sentences earlier, "Analytic ... includes also ... Plato." You think "analytic philosophy" isn't a contemporary term? 5. Mach and Poincaré wrote very important works of philosophy of science. Their wikipedia articles suggest that. Nearly any article on them suggests that. Whewell's work comes from a period when natural philosophy had not become fully autonomous from philosophy, and accordingly philosophy of science predates that split. 7. Relatively recent work, say, by Hacking on Foucault; or Longino on social studies of science; or the HoPoS movement's engagement here and there with post-Hegelian philosophy; the resurgence of interest in pragmatism among people like Kitcher (and thus also figures like Rorty who have written PoS which is not obviously analytic, e.g. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature); Friedman's and more recent engagements with Kant and Kantianism; and the proliferation of prominent philosophers of science with feet in both traditions, like Hans-Jörg Rheinberger ... I think all those support an increasing re-engagement of analytic and continental temperaments within philosophy of science. But we're not going to get anywhere with a how-near/how-far debate, and it is peripheral to the main issue at hand. And contrary to your assertion, no other editors but you have asked anyone to stop removing the term 'analytic' as you've added it.
 * And one item not to do with the itemized list: your comment that I have used the justification that I think my research area is important, or that anything I've written I've written just for that reason, you will not find supported in anything I've actually written. Thanks for your suggestions about the article. CHE 15:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucaas, your response to Banno ("No, what has happened is that that article said a "branch of Analytic philosophy", this was then removed and someone said it was a main branch and discipline of philosophy in general, without any backup or citation.") does not reflect history. Check out the history of the article, and will recognize that throughout 2004, 2005, and 2006 until YOU made this change, the article suggested the moderate, consensus view that PoS is part of philosophy. The line I cited from the estimable Encyclopedia of Philosophy repeats that idea nearly verbatim. Why would that not count as a citation? CHE 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See separate section below for reply to the 7 points.

I never said what the article said before this dispute I was just saying that the removal of analytic from the article was not backed up by citation. Well even wikipedia defies you, just look at the "branches of philosophy" in the philosophy panel. Only 5 are listed, philosophy of science however much you might like to give importance to it is not one of them. --Lucas

"Real practice"?
From the article: "The "other things being equal" clause is a critical qualification, which rather severely limits the utility of Ockham's razor in real practice, as theorists rarely if ever find themselves presented with competent theories of exactly equal explanatory adequacy." On the contrary, isn't this an indication of how deeply integrated Ockham's razor is in the theoretic process? Theorists don't find themselves presented with theories of equal explanatory adequacy exactly because this principle has already eliminated duplicate ideas and theories before they are formally presented. If you were a scientist and you discovered that somebody else had already developed a complete theory based on your ideas, you would not begin developing yet another set of terms to describe those exact same ideas - because of Ockham's razor, not in spite of it. --AndersFeder 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

7 points at issue, if a branch of phil in general or of analytic
First the 7 points from user CHE:

1. As a previous reverter noted, if PoS is a branch of analytic philosophy, then the section on continental philosophy of science should be deleted. But that would be ridiculous.

2. If you look at the analytic philosophy page, you'll notice that it defines analytic philosophy as the tradition extending from Russell and Moore. If you look at the list of philosophers of science on this page, you'll notice that MOST of them are not descendants of those figures nor focused on the kind of linguistic analysis which has characterized analytic philosophy through the twentieth century.

3. In the same vein, work in philosophy of science is diverse, and contra Lucaas there are a lot of philosophers of science who take philosophers not in the analytic tradition, like Husserl, Foucault, Peirce, Aristotle (e.g. Cartwright on capacities), Kant, Latour, Kuhn, etc., as their most significant precursors, continental thinkers NOT anglo-american linguistic analysis, which is to say, analytic philosophy.

4. It's also absurd to suggest that there was no ancient philosophy of sciece; see Aristotle.

5. If philosophy of science is a branch of analytic philosophy, are Whewell, Herschel, Mach, Poincaré not philosophers of science? (Bogus.)

6. The implication that philosophy of science need be a branch off most or all those other branches Lucaas names (ancient, continental, etc.) in order not to be a branch of philosophy more general is confused.

7. Philosophy at present simply does not divide neatly between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. So please stop changing 'Philosophy' in the first sentence to 'Analytic Philosophy.' All the other editors (not including me until just now) have been right to revert that.

Reply on each of the 7 from User Lucas:

1. One can still have a section called on continental phil, within a branch of analytic. It is not a problem. It is another matter to try talk of "Continental Philosophy of Science" as though it were a discipline within it. In Continental Philosophy such a branch as "phil of sci" is rejected. Nor is there such a discipline in Eastern or Greek philosophy. In other words, there is no such discipline except in Analytic.

2. Analytic does not only include philosophy from Russell and Moore. It includes also Mill, Kant, and most major philosophers prior to Kant, eg, Occam, Plato etc.

3. You suggest "Phil of Sci" includes "Husserl, Foucault, Kant, Kuhn". Apart from Kuhn none of these were doing the "Phil of Science" as if it were anything other than philsophy in general. As to Kuhn, he is well within the Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine, definitions of Analytic. This is also clear from the wiki article on Kuhn.

4. Is it absurd to suggest there was no ancient phil of sci? From within the Analytic branch it is absurd, perhaps, but not from outside Analytic where there is no such discipline. It is absurd to apply a distincly contemporary term to ancient philosophy, as though they were consciously doing "phil of sci" and would not deny such a categorisation. Especially, for example, when Socrates explicitly rejects science when setting out to institute philosophy in the first place. That is philsophy as something other than science.

5. Whewell, Herschel, Mach, Poincaré, were more correctly doing philosophy from within science. Though they have been taken up by analytic philosophy of science. Just as Leibniz is taken up in the Analytic tradition by Russell does not make Leibniz Analytic it does however include Leibniz in the analytic tradition.

6. To be a branch of philosophy in general would be to assume that philosophy in general considered it a branch. If, however, most of philosophy, except for Analytic, denied such a branch then it would be incorrect to attribute it as anything other than a branch of Analytic.

7. There is quite a wide open gape, a clear broad gap between continental and analytic, more than ever before. So along with other editors I ask you to stop removing the term anaytic that was on this page since I repeat it is not a branch of Continental nor Eastern philosophy.

Further (late) reply from user CHE on the 7:

1. If the section of this article on continental philosophy is not on continental philosophy of science (which I would dispute), but rather continental philosophy more generally, why does it belong in this article?

2. I agree that analytic philosophy takes all these philosophers to be its antecedents, but I think it is deeply idiosyncratic to treat Plato as an analytic philosopher himself. It's also belied by the degree to which many continental philosophers see Plato as a very important precursor.

3. Your comment that "none of these were doing the 'Phil of Science' as if it were anything other than philosophy in general" supports the standard view that philosophy of science is indeed part of philosophy; these figures were engaging philosophically with science, within the philosophical tradition--which is to say, engaging in philosophy of science. Philosophy of science after all IS part of philosophy in general!

4. I have a hard time understanding Aristotle's prescriptions for good science as anything other than philosophy of science--a philosophical account of science; I did not name Socrates as an example for the good reasons you note. If "it is absurd to apply a distinctly contemporary term to ancient philosophy", how is it that you write, just seven sentences earlier, "Analytic ... includes also ... Plato." You think "analytic philosophy" isn't a contemporary term?

5. Mach and Poincaré wrote very important works of philosophy of science. Their wikipedia articles suggest that. Nearly any article on them suggests that. Whewell's work comes from a period when natural philosophy had not become fully autonomous from philosophy, and accordingly philosophy of science predates that split.

7. Relatively recent work, say, by Hacking on Foucault; or Longino on social studies of science; or the HoPoS movement's engagement here and there with post-Hegelian philosophy; the resurgence of interest in pragmatism among people like Kitcher (and thus also figures like Rorty who have written PoS which is not obviously analytic, e.g. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature); Friedman's and more recent engagements with Kant and Kantianism; and the proliferation of prominent philosophers of science with feet in both traditions, like Hans-Jörg Rheinberger ... I think all those support an increasing re-engagement of analytic and continental temperaments within philosophy of science. But we're not going to get anywhere with a how-near/how-far debate, and it is peripheral to the main issue at hand. And contrary to your assertion, no other editors but you have asked anyone to stop removing the term 'analytic' as you've added it.

Further reply by Lucas

1. The section on PoS in Continental is a summary of what the Analytic PoS sees as being within Continental. A separated out PoS is rejected in Continental. Check the page on Continental, you do not find it talking of a branch PoS within which certain philosophers work.

2. I never said Plato was an Analytic philosopher just that he is read in the Analytic tradition, as he is in the Continental. Your original point was that because Plato was on the PoS page it meant that it was not just Analytic but also Continental. This is not so if Plato is filtered through this Analytic PoS.

3. When I said they were not doing PoS I meant they did not self-consciously consider themselves in that way. For many science was philosophy itself. For them the branches of philosophy were 5, PoS was not one of them. So though PoS is philosophy it is not one of the branches of the subject but something that is mixed-in the 5 branches.

4. Socrates did put aside science and then took up philosophy. Aristotle gave science and then he gave us metaphysics, a separate branch to science. Analytic of course includes reading Plato and Aristotle but that does not mean they are Anlytic.

5. I do not deny that Mach and Poincaré wrote on what is now called PoS but what I said was this was mainly an attempt from within science to ground itself somehow.

6. For PoS to count as a branch of philosophy in general, would be to assume that philosophy in general considered it a branch. If, however, most of philosophy, except for Analytic, denied such a branch, then it would be incorrect to attribute it as anything other than a branch for Analytic.

7. That some rapprochement occurs between Analytic and Continental, or even approriation, is not of interest to the encyclopedia except as an extra caveat or comment. Nor can you say that it is going on "within the PoS", since PoS does not exist as a separate branch in Continental, unless of course it is merely a form of approriation. We have no way to predict what this might mean. Does it mean PoS becomes viewed as just another epistemology or as historically formed, In either case it may or may not come out in the wash as a separate branch.

As to editors removing Analytic from the article, as you attest, this is not supported by the arguments and is to be expected from only certain people in the Analytic area of PoS who may not see it in a broader context.

--Lucas


 * I'm reposting this from the philosophy project page:
 * While most works in philosophy of science are analytic in approach, a text I studied for a grad. class included Feyerabend, stuff on the Strong programme and other social issues in sciences, Kuhn, alongside the usual Hempel, Putnam, van Fraasen, etc. Would you classify Feyerabend as analytic? (my professor simply labeled him a wacko) What about Kuhn? Kuhn's work has been of interest to so-called analytic and non-analytic philosophers alike. Is there anything in his style that classifies him as analytic? Zeusnoos 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)  Perhaps as a semantic solution, "Philosophy of"s are not branches (like epistemology, metaphysics, etc) but Topics of concern for philosophy.  Zeusnoos 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say, already. At best, Lucaas's position--that Philosophy of Science is better described as a branch of analytic philosophy [which I think is controversial] than as part of philosophy [which I think is uncontroversial]--is idiosyncratic and unsupported by any citations (much less, by recognized ones); at worst, it presents an incoherent picture of the relationships among the parts of the discipline, and one at odds with institutional arrangements, journals, and the literature. Secondly, I do not think this issue concerns the importance or legitimacy of areas of philosophy for anyone but Lucaas. For the record, I have no problem with Philosophy of Initiation Rites [or Rights, as Lucaas wrote] being listed on its own page as a branch of philosophy, if you can find a few professional philosophers who do it, and the same goes for any other area. I have no problem with that. Being a branch of philosophical inquiry is just a descriptive fact which is a function of institutional arrangements and the professional literature. I don't understand why anyone would see this issue as being about whether philosophy of science is +important+ or +legitimate+ or not. And so with that said, I don't think enough evidence or coherent argumentation has been offered to understand this issue as in any way a live controversy. Philosophy of science is an area of philosophy. CHE 00:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As to presenting PoS as a branch of philosophy in general I think it is very controversial, odd and peculiar to yourself. Since most references put the branches of philosophy at five: Epistemology, Metaphysics, Logic, Ethics and Aesthetics.  To add a sixth one, Science.  Seems historically inaccurate and presumptuous.  No doubt new branches do occur, I maintain this happens when philsophy in general agrees that it is as such.  To multiply the branches beyond any reason and include, as you suggest, a branch called the "philosophy of initiation rites", is just reducing the meaning of a branch of philosophy, and philosophy itself, to meaning nothing but that someone studies it, and so we have the branch of philosophy called induction and another called deduction, a branch called the philosophy of cancer, etc..


 * I'm not saying that Feyerabend need be Analytic. Though both Kuhn and Feyerabend are Analytic/Anglophone, and, by the way, whackiness is not exclusively an Analytic thing, there are some on the Continental and Eastern side too!  It is the Analytic that separates and prioritises to a branch of philosophy in general, something which is really not separable, this is rejected by non-Analytic philosophers.  PoS purports to try and prove science or show how it fails, but either way to keep the argument going or pretend that there still is an argument and that it is of value.  So this is the role of philosophy now?  Historically such an invertion of priority can be traced back mainly through only Analytic lines, to Locke.  I do not doubt that much is still philosophy, all good and true, it is just that it is mainly Analytic, not even Western in general, not Greek, nor Continental and certainly not Eastern Philosophy.  It is good to make this situatiing of the subject within the general umbrella of philosophy clear within the first paragraph or two of the article.

--Lucas


 * Lucaas says: "Though both Kuhn and Feyerabend are Analytic/Anglophone..."
 * Under what definition of "Analytic" could Kuhn and Feyerabend be considered Analytic? Neither proceeds by way of linguistic analysis or logical analysis, subscribes to positivism or ordinary language philosophy, cares much for logical rigor.  Kuhn began as something of an outsider to philosophy, having been trained in physics and history.  Feyerabend is not even Anglophone; he was German!  He wrote some things in English, and had a part-time appointment at Berkeley, but he also wrote many works in German.


 * Lucaas: "PoS purports to try and prove science or show how it fails."
 * And he wants us to take him seriously has having anything to contributed to an article on philosophy of science? --The Hanged Man 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kuhn and Feyerabend are given widespread treatment in Anglophone/Analytic philosophy of science but I can't find any appearance of them in Continental philosophy. By the way, don't get hung up on Austria, there is also, or has been, at least, Analytic philosophy there, or from there, (eg, Wittgenstein, Carnap). The vast bulk of Kuhn and Feyerabend's work has been done and taken up in Anglophone countries. Nor is there any reason for you to suggest that because Kuhn initially studied history he has not got strong Analytic argument about science that can stand alone without invoking eg, Marxism or Existentialist arguments. Also check his wiki page it says he is Analytic.

Your last comment is rather cryptic, so perhaps you didn't understand me. To put it more clearly, in philosophy one might specialise (either as undergrad or graduate) in the philosophy of science. Using philosophical resources you try to prove science as true or you suggest where it fails. You make arguments how induction doesnt work and try to fill the crack (eg, falsifiability) or, in some cases, make it bigger (eg, incommensurability). You have some more or less stand alone argument to show science as true, unprovable, falsifiable, incommensurable etc. This gives PoS as an almost self-contained branch of philosophy

This, I maintain is not be the way Continental philosophy approachs it, instead it might begin from a broadly philosophic position with nothing specific to do with science, eg, phenomenology, hermeneutic, Hegelian, Marxist, deconstructive, Existentialism. There may follow from any of these positions a view upon science or empiricism but they do not stand by themselves as "philosophy of science" and can only be understood within the broader philosophical position. This can only give a PoS as a part of other branches or movements of philosophy.

I'm not suggested either of these approaches is better, one suits the Analytic tradition, the other fits with the Continental one. --Lucas


 * I think the biggest problem here is that you are making too big a deal out of the Analytic/Contintental divide. Furthermore, not all Anglophone is Analytic!  --The Hanged Man 02:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree! It's just not worth this trouble. Wiki is not a debating forum. Banno 07:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. CHE 07:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. JJL 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is not for debate, once we all agree, that is fine. I think all the above comments make too much about this Ananlytic issue.  I had saught to clarify that the philosophy of science, considered as a new branch of philosophy, is so only for Analytic and not for Continental.  I think by making such a big deal of it, you proved the case at least that it is not and has not been an undisputed branch of philosophy in general.  --Lucas

Where to look for evidence of non-analytic philosophy of science

 * Continental philosophy of science - 5,260 results
 * Buddhist philosophy of science - 2,200 results
 * Aristotle's philosophy of science - 146 results
 * Plato's philosophy of science - 127 results
 * Heidegger's philosophy of science - 677 results

--The Hanged Man 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

All these just show how this misunderstanding has been construed. Notice for example "Heidegger's philosophy of science" is just a extraction of what a scientist might take from Heidegger, like most Continentals the philosophy was what guided him, a particular philosophy of science may or may not have appeared from that. It is easy to make false representation by summarising some statements on science out of context without showing how this came to be believed.

Again I do not deny talk of "philosophy of science", I just see it for Continental as part of mainly epsitemology, metaphysics and ethics. --Lucas


 * I think if you are crusading to fix this misunderstanding, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. It is not at all clear to me (nor is clear to hundreds of sources) that these are misunderstandings, and until there are solid sources to back your view of the Contintental/Analytic divide up, you should probably let the issue be.  --The Hanged Man 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not crusading for fixing anything, I made a fix on the page adding in the warning that the page was concerned with a branch that was mainly of Analytic philosophy. Again I do not deny talk of "philosophy of science" in Continental philosophy.  The evidence I have given amply above.  What your above Google results show is that you think Plato or Aristotle were doing Continental philosophy, this shows lack of understanding. --Lucas


 * It is pretty clear that the Google results were meant to show non-Analytic philosophy of science, not Continental philosophy of science. There is a difference.  To even attempt to apply the Analytic/Continental categories to people like Plato and Aristotle is anachronism at its best.  That shows lack of understanding.  Deckard05 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The point I was making was that you were trying to apply the category of Continental philosophy to Plato; you weren't and thats fine that you clarify.


 * I ask you how could Ancient philosophy have had a main branch of philosophy called "the philosophy of science", same goes for Buddhism. Again I have no issue with something called Plato's philosophy of science for someone who currently does PoS and project that view onto him, that is fine.  I maintain it is not in Continental as a main branch, that is enough, in my opinion, that the page should immediately make this clear. Best way to do that add the adjective Analytic to the first sentence.  --Lucas


 * I am surprised by a couple of omissions in this discussion. Hegels' "Philosophy of Nature" is his PoS book, and it's not analytic.  Schelling has a book on philosophy of science too (it was a topic in university philosophy faculties, long before analytic philosophy became established).  Windelband has a philosophy of science.  Lyotard's "The Postmodern Condition" is clearly philosophy of science, and as continental as you could wish.  Bernard Stiegler, the French philosopher, has produced some interesting PoS in recent years, and he's a follower of Derrida.  Virilio, whether you like his work or not, has written extensively on science and technology - hardly analytic.  Stacks of PoS in Marx, of course.  And in Deleuze too.  I'm not even sure Lakatos is really an analytic philosopher.  I might also add, re branches of ancient philosophy, that Aristotle did produce a Physics, as well as a Metaphysics, an Ethics, an Aesthetics and so on. KD Jan 16 07