Gandalf charts the way out of the Dark Forest.

[Nearly Sane]

So what? How you choose to label it makes no difference to the correctness of what PD is saying.

  And yet labelling something as science is entirely dependent on that approach.

[ProfessorDavey]

So what? How you choose to label it makes no difference to the correctness of what PD is saying.

NS is a bit like Vlad at times - continually arguing over obscure philosophical terms and moving goalposts rather than simply accept that he is wrong.

The notion that science is somehow in hock and dependent on the obscure branch of academic philosophy that is epistemology is frankly a bonkers proposition.

[Nearly Sane]

NS is a bit like Vlad at times - continually arguing over obscure philosophical terms and moving goalposts rather than simply accept that he is wrong.

The notion that science is somehow in hock and dependent on the obscure branch of philosophy that is epistemology is frankly a bonkers proposition.

  So I take it you think jeremyp was bonkers in writing " Science is what happens when philosophers start testing their ideas in the real world. Science is a natural outgrowth of philosophy" in reply 4 on the thread?

[ProfessorDavey]

  So I take it you think jeremyp was bonkers in writing " Science is what happens when philosophers start testing their ideas in the real world. Science is a natural outgrowth of philosophy" in reply 4 on the thread?

There you go NS - you've done it again. Narrowed your focus on epistemology when it suits your purposes and then broaden it out to the whole of philosophy when you wish. You really are just like Vlad in your approach.

In the post you are replying to I was referring to the narrow backwater within philosophy which is the philosophical sub, sub, sub-discipline of epistemology. Hence:

'The notion that science is somehow in hock and dependent on the obscure branch of academic philosophy that is epistemology is frankly a bonkers proposition.'

I also completely accept that science was once considered to be a sub-discipline of philosophy (see reply 14), but in modern times (and by modern I mean centuries) they have been considered to be distinct disciplines. And in the context of the early post on this thread where the discussion was about whether scientists should learn more philosophy or philosophers should learn more science - then that can only make any sense if they are considered to be distinct disciplines.

[Nearly Sane]

There you go NS - you've done it again. Narrowed your focus on epistemology when it suits your purposes and then broaden it out to the whole of philosophy when you wish. You really are just like Vlad in your approach.

In the post you are replying to I was referring to the narrow backwater within philosophy which is the philosophical sub, sub, sub-discipline of epistemology. Hence:

'The notion that science is somehow in hock and dependent on the obscure branch of academic philosophy that is epistemology is frankly a bonkers proposition.'

I also completely accept that science was once considered to be a sub-discipline of philosophy, but in modern time (and by modern I mean centuries) they have been considered to be distinct disciplines. And in the context of the early post on this thread where the discussion was about whether scientists should learn more philosophy or philosophers should learn more science - then that can only make any sense if they are considered to be distinct disciplines.

When science grew put of philosophy, as you now accept, then there wasn't a division called epistemology but the question of knowledge was what was being addresses. So just as those earlier scientists were doing science without the scientific method' as defined in the 16th and 17th century, so those early philosophers were looking at the philosophy of knowledge before the term epistemology became a 'branch'.

[ProfessorDavey]

When science grew put of philosophy, as you now accept, ...

I never said that science grew out of philosophy - I said that science was once considered to be a branch of philosophy. That isn't the same thing at all.

There is a pretty strong argument that during the very earliest evolution of humans, those humans were engaging in primitive science - using a systematic approach to gain knowledge on what worked and what didn't work. Were those early human ancestors engaging in philosophy - who knows - much harder to find archeological evidence of what people were thinking rather than what they were doing in a practical sense.

So I think it is pretty hard to say which came first - I'd probably argue that philosophical discourse would be a second order need which would come along after the practical first order needs that would be addressed by the earliest scientific endeavours (which generated tools, agriculture, effective methods for hunting etc, etc) which are more survival based.

[Nearly Sane]

I never said that science grew out of philosophy - I said that science was once considered to be a branch of philosophy. That isn't the same thing at all.

There is a pretty strong argument that during the very earliest evolution of humans, those humans were engaging in primitive science - using a systematic approach to gain knowledge on what worked and what didn't work. Were those early human ancestors engaging in philosophy - who knows - much harder to find archeological evidence of what people were thinking rather than what they were doing in a practical sense.

So I think it is pretty hard to say which came first - I'd probably argue that philosophical discourse would be a second order need which would come along after the practical first order needs that would be addressed by the earliest scientific endeavours (which generated tools, agriculture, effective methods for hunting etc, etc) which are more survival based.

What constitutes knowledge is a practical first order need.

[ProfessorDavey]

So just as those earlier scientists were doing science without the scientific method' as defined in the 16th and 17th century, so those early philosophers were looking at the philosophy of knowledge before the term epistemology became a 'branch'.

Except, of course, there is documented evidence from as long ago as 1600BE of the scientific method being used and reported. And this is just written records - the basic proposition of the scientific method - make a prediction, test it in a systematic way, make observations and analyse what happened and draw conclusions - was happening way earlier than that, even if not written down as such.

The scientific method didn't emerge in the 16th and 17thC - far from it

[ProfessorDavey]

What constitutes knowledge is a practical first order need.

Once again you are confusing the acquisition and use of knowledge (definitely first order in terms of human survival) with the philosophical study of the nature of knowledge. As interesting as the latter may be, you don't need to study the nature of knowledge to be able to acquire and use knowledge.

I come back to my language analogy - early humans will have acquired and used language in a manner that had utility - without any need to study the nature of language, i.e. linguistics.

You seem to be arguing the equivalent of saying that somehow you cannot have language and its utility until after you have linguistics. And that somehow linguistics, rather than language, is what confers first order survival advantage.