Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:01:58 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Collected Thoughts -  Philosophy and Science


Steve/All,

Although the pursuit of dictionary definitions may be fruitful, it is
tedious and potentially endless.   HyperDic, the online site, produces a CD
that includes 120,000 words.  Studying one new word each day would take more
than 300 years.

HyperDic treats commonsense as a single word, and goes to belief systems and
the meaning of "belief". The concept of belief leads to the word "truth"
etc.

Merriam-Webster, via Encyclopedia Britannica, is more limited, but (for me)
"acceptable",
whatever that means:

Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
Date: 1535
1 : the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment

There are at least half a dozen different kinds of philosophy, including
"natural philosophy",
which is the sciience of nature, moral philosophy, etc.

I once had a teacher who had written a book about the "philosophy of
science".

But returning to common sense - if we on the Lyotard List wish to arrive at
a mutual understanding of  the "reflective" opinions of  "sophisticated"
people, we seem to be doomed to pursue more words, and to describing our
personal  understanding of their meanings.

regards,
Hugh








> Hugh
>
> I am interested in ascertaining whether the view you express which is a
> "common sense" understanding of the relationship between science and
> philosophy is something that others on the list agree with...
>
> (I don't regard common sense in a negative sense here AT ALL, just to be
> clear...)
>
> steve
> >
> > Steve/All,
> >
> > I have no idea.  It's my opinion, the result of reading various
> > authors.  If one or more authors could make it acceptable to you, it
> > would then be your opinion.  Would the words of any one author any
> > combination of authors make it "true".
> >
> > Misunderstandings of philosophy were replaced by understandings of
> > science.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Hugh/All
> >>
> >> Who amoungst those out there also regard this statement as a complete
> >> misunderstanding of philosophy but also science? Or do you believe
> >> that
> > this
> >> is an accurate and acceptable statement ?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Philosophy is heir to science. Major transformations of philosophy
> >> > came after discoveries of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Watson-Crick.
>
>