Timeline for Why doesn't philosophy have higher standards for its arguments?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| S Jul 17, 2019 at 12:41 | history | suggested | user8572 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I rectified.
|
| Jul 17, 2019 at 6:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 17, 2019 at 12:41 | |||||
| Jul 16, 2019 at 7:47 | comment | added | Luaan | @virmaior I would perhaps hazard a stronger claim - many things that were part of philosophy have been rigorously defined, and since then, left the realm of philosophy. What remains is the part we can't properly tackle yet, and the boiling pot of essentially random ideas and logic following from broad assumptions etc. Mathematics is a good example of how "worthless" logic (i.e. proper logic allows you to successfully argue for things that are completely wrong if you start with bad assumptions) can be tamed by a set of axioms. Philosophy of science did much the same for physics or chemistry. | |
| Jul 16, 2019 at 1:25 | comment | added | virmaior |
@UTF-8 But as long as you don't specify what you mean by "sufficiently" is part of my point rather than contrary to it. Mathematical proofs work because they define each term they use and each method in rather strict fashion. The domain of philosophy does not in general permit this level of definition because the things it wants to talk about are not that strictly understood.
|
|
| Jul 16, 2019 at 1:23 | comment | added | virmaior | @UTF-8 No, I don't. My use of "doing history" in the comment was perhaps inept, but the idea is that philosophy is always reflecting on someone's philosophy that came before and building from that. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 23:16 | comment | added | UTF-8 | @virmaior Papers in hard sciences (including the structural sciences) also refer to other papers, in part to avoid having to establish vocabulary again. But of course also to avoid having to define other things, as well as to give credit or just as references. You really wanna call everything with references in it "doing history"? | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 23:00 | comment | added | virmaior | @Eliran at first I thought it was possible, but suggest a paper that is not also doing history. Find one with zero citations and zero reference to prior literature for its vocabulary and project. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 16:43 | comment | added | E... | I don't agree that philosophy is primarily a form of history. That might be true for the history of philosophy part of philosophy, but many philosophers do other, non-historical things. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 14:15 | comment | added | UTF-8 | "how would you discuss with a mathematical proof whether mathematical proofs are sufficiently rigorous?" It's not a valid question because there is a free variable. If there wasn't, you could actually tackle the question scientifically. But as long as you don't specify what you mean by "sufficiently", there cannot be a scientific answer and any attempt of providing an answer will be foiled and only yield at best a flawed answer. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 6:14 | history | answered | virmaior | CC BY-SA 4.0 |