Re: Science vs Philosophy of

Article View: sci.philosophy.tech

Article #258

Back to sci.philosophy.tech Previous Next

#258

From: Torkel Franzen
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:02

11 lines
1124 bytes

In article <1992Aug28.013928.4918@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:

   >However, in retospect its clear these folks greatest contributions
   >were as mathematicians and physicists. Their philosophical efforts 
   >were of little import, although it does give early philosophy a
   >bit of a boost to be able to claim these great scientists as philosophers.

  My only objection to this remark is that it is completely vacuous. What
is the point of discussing "philosophy" in terms that presuppose or
draw on no knowledge whatever of anything having to do with philosophy?

Technical Details

Message-ID: <TORKEL.92Aug28060221@bast.sics.se>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!sics.se!torkel

References: <exukjb.97.714929511@exu.ericsson.se> <1992Aug28.013928.4918@math.ucla.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!sics.se!torkel
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
In-Reply-To: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu's message of 28 Aug 92 01:39:28 GMT
Message-ID: <TORKEL.92Aug28060221@bast.sics.se>
Sender: news@sics.se
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
References: <exukjb.97.714929511@exu.ericsson.se> <1992Aug28.013928.4918@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:02:21 GMT
Lines: 13

Reply to Parent Message