🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:

>What I wanted to say was: philosophers have to work below the boundary of
>methodical thought, as they have to *define* methodical thought.

>I state that there is no criterium for "real philosophy", other than
>"the reflective work which must be performed before any science can
>begin".

How about defining the scope of philosophy as the discovery of non-empirical
truths and that of science as discovering empirical truths.  The pursuit of
non-empirical truths would include definitions or studies of what an empirical
truth is, how to arrive at empirical truths, as well as delineations of
necessary forms of thought, proper modes of reasoning, etc..  In this
definition, logic and mathematics would be under philosophy, while psychology,
physics, and the like would be under science.

If this definition were correct, then we could truly say that science is built
on a philosophical foundation (or, as you imply, that philosophy is logically
prior to science).
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge