tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post1241407989066353984..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: The Bazaarness of PhilosophyJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-27227137706755691822012-03-12T03:00:02.752-05:002012-03-12T03:00:02.752-05:00"This is a red herring. The AoC is an axiom-y..."This is a red herring. The AoC is an axiom-you assume it or you don't. It simply adds to the toolbox, so that you can deal with objects involving infinity. To say that you arrive at different conclusions is incorrect. There is simply more constructions available."<br /><br />We know this now, thanks to high power results in logic, but what would you have said before its Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-83039221671288658092012-03-11T22:19:06.971-05:002012-03-11T22:19:06.971-05:00Both Kazez and McGinn are wrong. Philosophy is not...Both Kazez and McGinn are wrong. Philosophy is not a science because philosophers are not bound by empirical investigation. That doesn't mean we don't take empirical investigations seriously; it just means that what we deal with is not exhausted by what can be empirically determined. Most of us fancy that we deal with things that can't be determined empirically, which of course doesn&TheOneRingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-42089794408357646012012-03-11T20:27:21.476-05:002012-03-11T20:27:21.476-05:00"Can it really be true that 10 people are bei..."Can it really be true that 10 people are being "systematic and rigorous", if they arrive at 10 different conclusions on the same subject?"<br /><br />This sentence could only be written by someone who hasn't had much experience in philosophy. In fact, philosophers agree on a wide majority of central issues. See the results of David Chalmers' PhilPapers survey if youAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-82509329728203103012012-03-11T18:17:20.424-05:002012-03-11T18:17:20.424-05:00"Can it really be true that these are rigorou..."Can it really be true that these are rigorous facts if they arrive at different conclusions on the same subject?"<br /><br />This is a red herring. The AoC is an axiom-you assume it or you don't. It simply adds to the toolbox, so that you can deal with objects involving infinity. To say that you arrive at different conclusions is incorrect. There is simply more constructions mathguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02591559181439884572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-40834480412453028502012-03-11T16:39:52.924-05:002012-03-11T16:39:52.924-05:00"Can it really be true that 10 people are bei..."Can it really be true that 10 people are being "systematic and rigorous", if they arrive at 10 different conclusions on the same subject?"<br /><br />In mathematics, if the axiom of choice is assumed, then it is possible to well order any set. If the axiom of choice does not hold, then not all sets may be well ordered. Can it really be true that these are rigorous facts if Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-42592217886888549822012-03-11T16:33:46.549-05:002012-03-11T16:33:46.549-05:00This is a link to a post I wrote about Stephen Haw...This is a link to a post I wrote about Stephen Hawking saying that philosophy was dead, but it tries to address the same issue. Philosophy is not science, because it is not engaged in explanation; but not all intellectually serious activities are explanation.<br /><br />http://wp.me/pXBia-6aAmong The Poseidonianshttp://poseidonian.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-20839034443716025922012-03-07T14:56:05.412-06:002012-03-07T14:56:05.412-06:00Yes... 10 people can be systematic and rigorous if...Yes... 10 people can be systematic and rigorous if they arrive to different conclusions on the same topic. <br /><br />Look at Theoretical physics. There are several theories about how the universe works. They are all systematically and rigorously examined theories, and they simply can't all be true. <br /><br />I think Theoretical physics is modern day metaphysics in many ways. The Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-42290628161952545502012-03-07T14:46:21.136-06:002012-03-07T14:46:21.136-06:00I think McGinn was playing around with new names, ...I think McGinn was playing around with new names, but probably serious about thinking philosophy is science-like and deserves the high status of science. <br /><br />SKG-- I can't imagine anyone describing a debate between two biologists by saying "For X, blah-blah, but for Y, blah-blah-blah." The "for" locution suggests that each person is living in a private world. ItJean Kazeznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-16304078233027310752012-03-07T04:16:35.380-06:002012-03-07T04:16:35.380-06:00I've always interpreted the "For X, ___&q...I've always interpreted the "For X, ___" locution as "According to X, ___", or "X holds the view that ___", or "As far as X is concerned, ___". So interpreted, this locution indicates X bearing some attitude towards the view ___, rather than ___ holding in some X-mediated way (e.g. ___ holds in the X-way-of-thinking-about-things). It may still be, as I SKGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-41779760798450858802012-03-06T17:36:43.041-06:002012-03-06T17:36:43.041-06:00I'm not sure how serious McGinn is about renam...I'm not sure how serious McGinn is about renaming philosophy. One of his suggestions is "beology". Really? (Is it April 1st?) In any case, philosophy is surely not science in the normal meaning of that word. What would "philosophy of science" mean: the science of science? Philosophers are not scientists but building inspectors who examine the constructions of scientists Aeolushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15772583359516799143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-8443881550291457482012-03-06T10:48:08.805-06:002012-03-06T10:48:08.805-06:00I agree, although with two caveats. I'm not su...I agree, although with two caveats. I'm not sure how serious McGinn is being, given that he says he wants to launch the Campaign for Renaming Academic Philosophy, and draws attention to what the acronym would be. Secondly, I'm not so sure that "Each of the arguers in the philosophical Bazaar certainly feels like a scientist--a systematic, rationally-guided knower." I wonder how Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-8574965414390803372012-03-06T08:13:09.660-06:002012-03-06T08:13:09.660-06:00It's funny to note that all of the "chara...It's funny to note that all of the "characteristics" of science listed by McGinn are plainly surface qualities. Does he honestly believe that the success of physical science is due to "technical vocabulary" and "symbolic notation" in the literature, or the fact that both departments are "tenure-granting" and "institutionalized"? His argument Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com