No. The philosophy of science is the study of what science assumes (i.e. the unstated view of reality which underlies various scientific projects).
Epistemology, on the other hand, is the study of our ability to know, but not what we know, nor the reasons why we think we know it. These are metaphysical questions.
Thus, I think metaphysics is more fundamental to the philosophy of science than epistemology.
I realise, however, that most American philosophers consider epistemology to be prima philosophia, and I understand their reasoning. I simply disagree.
I would hope in your wisdom you might realise that some arguments do not need facts, but can be decided on an a priori ground.
This in mind, if you deny that the phenomenal requires a phenomenal cause, then you have proven my argument. You want to extend causality beyond its proper realm.
This is why any proof of God from his affects, strictly understood, is doomed to failure. All an ID argument could prove is an Intelligent Designer. It could not equate this with God, because God escapes the phenomenal. And having proved an Intelligent Designer, there is no way it could disguish this from nature itself.
Now, if your point is that ID simply shows the providence of Nature, then we have nothing to argue about. But, if you want ID to say anything about God, then we have issues.
Science is falsifiable. ID is not falsifiable. Ergo, ID is not science.
Let me put this differently: anything phenomenon must have a phenomenal cause. ID ignores this. But, science deals only with phenomena.
Or yet another way: how can a 'science' know what is in the mind of God, when God is noumenal, and thus beyond the realm of the phenomenal? If your answer involves Thomas Aquinas, then we may have something to talk about. But otherwise, no chance.
Indeed, and I certainly agree with your more nuanced reading.
But the big damage was already done in Florida a month or so back, when a bill was introduced to grant students the right to sue their professors. That bill is aimed squarely at the teaching of evolution AT UNIVERSITY, and is only two readings away from becoming legislation.
Clearly, this is a bigger threat, even if the bill dies. The very fact that a legislature could try to silence science in this manner is frightening.
As a philosopher, I could not agree more. Of course, I would prefer more courses on metaphysics, but what is the philosophy of science, more than applied metaphysics?
As retarded as ID is, I see no point in discussing it here on/.
ID has nothing to do with science, and/. is obsessed with science.
The extent of any intelligent conversation with ID must be limited to the above. Anything else is not only superfluous, but also in danger of ennobling those quacks.
Sorry for the delay, problems with open proxies at my isp!
Anyway, did not say that we can't assume common definitions, but that we cannot assume a common definition to begin with. We must work this out, and assuming that each of our dictionaries back each other up is not too warranted an assumption.
For instance, my dictionary defines journalism in reference to the print media, and even leaves out television.
Of course, I could get another dictionary, but nevertheless, my point is made. If I relied on my dictionary, I would have to disagree that blogs can be journalism. But I agree that some blogs, those that fit the definition I gave above, are. Of course, my definition is fully dialectical and can only grow in strength through discussions as I learn what it leaves out.
It's the fault of that descriptivist disease running around university campuses for the last two decades. Someday a hard rain is gonna fall, and wash all the scum away... .
Peer review does not limit itself to academic journals, which we have seen in the whole Dan Rather affair. In that, his story was subjected to a peer review and found wanting.
What good are dictionary definitions, when we all have different dictionaries? Stipulative definitions are better here, because then we can argue them. Assuming a common definition of such a term is really not possible.
I agree with the rest of your points, btw. But I wish to stress responsibility, which you tacitly point out in your reference to boutique journalism. For, journalism connotes believability, which implies trust and responsibility.
I have thought about it, and I have no idea what you mean, since you don't actually give a definition.
What is journalism? First, let's take only one subject of journalism, news journalism (leaving e.g. op-ed and columnists out, for sake of brevity). I would say news journalism a responsible (peer reviewed) and investigative reporting of facts, which may or may not be accompanied by reasoned opinion.
Bloggers in a sense are peer reviewed, but only in a sense: the community of users basically determines the value of a blog, yet the value of that community varies wildly depending on the community itself.
Basically,/. is well peer reviewed, because it does not attract only one point of view, and the moderation system allows even a savvy non-techie to separate the wheat from the chaf. But it is not journalism; rather, it is a like a newspaper stand with comments scrawled on the surface. Its contributions are largely critical, and not investigative.
Now, many blogs are investigative, and like I said, all are subjected to rudimentary peer review (even if the review is only flamers). But it is rather obvious that many of these are not driven by, nor beholden to, the principles of objectivity and distance (whatever they be worth in the real world, at least they remain as ideals).
So, in short, a case by case review is necessary. The metric, beyond quality of writing, would be the standards of investigation and an acknowledged responsibility toward their readers, as concretised in their respect for peer review.
Just like television made the news more personal to the viewer compared to radio broadcasts and just as radio broadcasts made the news more personal compared to newspaper articles..
You imply that his HDNet World Report is a logical extension of the mission of the news media, which is a false premise. Newspapers (and battle field dispatched before them - see Caesar), radio, TV, and then internet news all report; ie, despite bias, they generally try to give a rational and synthesised account of activity. His system does the opposite: it simply presents a confused manifold of sensations. Which brings me to my next point:
I don't think there is anything wrong with bringing as close a simulation as possible home to the general public. Sure, there is the initial ooohing and aaahing over the technology rather than relating to the actual events, but that wears off quickly enough.
He is not presenting it as simulation, but as reporting - he calls it news and a world report. You worry about unobjective reporters skewing our perceptions: how about nearly direct (simulated) experiences that people are unable to make sense of? And to call this highly processed footage 'raw' - footage that itself will have gone through an editorial process designed to pick out the most stimulating simulations (oops, I meant 'experiences') - well, that's the height of delusion.
I am not saying that there is nothing valuable in shows like HDNet World Report, but I am saying that what is dangerous is confusing them with news, when in fact they are nothing more than entertain designed to glue us even more to a hardware and advertising revenue stream.
Whereas with our news, we have a show called HDNet World Report where we put cameras in all kinds of hot spots--Iraq, wherever. And when we show a firefight or some sort of bombing, we don't have the reporter say anything. They just say, "We're in Iraq, we're in Baghdad, and there's a firefight going on, I'll shut up and let you watch it." And being able to see it in wide-screen high resolution with 5.1 sound, if you have a tank firing, you hear it coming out of one ear and see it leaving out of the other ear. It's just incredible. Just to be able to see it like you're actually sitting there is amazing.
He sells this as if it is content, but in fact it is just the opposite... At least newscasts generally attempt to give a framework and a grasp of what's happening. He is offering nothing more than an ersatz experience made all the more ersatz by emulation. When will this technology spatter blood on its viewers too?
I am not against his company, or his use of technology. But I am worried about the commodification of everything, including the battle field 'experience,' which has now been reduced officially to being, like, incredible and amazing. I guess it is, when you command a home theatre.
Why is this sad, mr. coward? And we are not restricting people from books, for 'people' is a very abstract concept. Often, the challenges revolve around books that some people claim are inappropriate for certain ages - a much more concrete situation that requires careful consideration, not blanket condemnation. Their challenges could be wrong, or stupid, but to rule them censorship out of hand is as stupid as the position that you condemn.
For the sake of argument, let's say that the that wiretapping VOIP is necessary for our freedom and well-being and children and all that.
If the end-users do not pay the VOIP provider for the cost of the wiretap, then the money will ultimately come from taxes. Which method do you think would be more cost-effective and better managed?
Re:Drafts and Oral Examinations
on
Cheating Made Easy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I accept that you disagree, and that your reason is good. I simply think, however, that you have only looked at one small aspect of a paper.
Have you ever sat an oral examination? The point is not to 'riff on a theme', but rather to be pushed to the point of your ignorance, which is basically how an oral grade is determined.
When a student is examined orally concerning a paper, the prof goes well beyond questions of content: the arguments are extended into new terrain, research methods are inquired into, methodology and structure are investigated, and so on.
I guess one can always try to bluff, and even be successful at 'owning' the argument. But to be convincingly responsible for the text in its many aspects beyond mere argument, well, that's a lot more work. And difficult.
Moreover, I agree completely with your characterisation of the academic arms race. That's what's so nice about the system of which I am speaking: rather than relying on technology to suss out cheating, the prof can use his own intelligence through the dialectic of the exam. And if cheating is suspected, then the prof can later seek evidence (or simply fail the student objectively for having a weak grasp of the paper, if the oral component of the grade is large enough).
Slashdot Mirror
this tag will probably have the effect of shortening the length of jail sentences ...
Epistemology, on the other hand, is the study of our ability to know, but not what we know, nor the reasons why we think we know it. These are metaphysical questions.
Thus, I think metaphysics is more fundamental to the philosophy of science than epistemology.
I realise, however, that most American philosophers consider epistemology to be prima philosophia, and I understand their reasoning. I simply disagree.
This in mind, if you deny that the phenomenal requires a phenomenal cause, then you have proven my argument. You want to extend causality beyond its proper realm.
This is why any proof of God from his affects, strictly understood, is doomed to failure. All an ID argument could prove is an Intelligent Designer. It could not equate this with God, because God escapes the phenomenal. And having proved an Intelligent Designer, there is no way it could disguish this from nature itself.
Now, if your point is that ID simply shows the providence of Nature, then we have nothing to argue about. But, if you want ID to say anything about God, then we have issues.
Let me put this differently: anything phenomenon must have a phenomenal cause. ID ignores this. But, science deals only with phenomena.
Or yet another way: how can a 'science' know what is in the mind of God, when God is noumenal, and thus beyond the realm of the phenomenal? If your answer involves Thomas Aquinas, then we may have something to talk about. But otherwise, no chance.
Clearly, this is a bigger threat, even if the bill dies. The very fact that a legislature could try to silence science in this manner is frightening.
are you dutch / flemish, misschien?
As a philosopher, I could not agree more. Of course, I would prefer more courses on metaphysics, but what is the philosophy of science, more than applied metaphysics?
ID has nothing to do with science, and /. is obsessed with science.
The extent of any intelligent conversation with ID must be limited to the above. Anything else is not only superfluous, but also in danger of ennobling those quacks.
Agreed. Those of us in the humanities who are stuck without a good library of classic European texts ought to be very exited. I am.
pigeon rank, anyone?
For instance, my dictionary defines journalism in reference to the print media, and even leaves out television.
Of course, I could get another dictionary, but nevertheless, my point is made. If I relied on my dictionary, I would have to disagree that blogs can be journalism. But I agree that some blogs, those that fit the definition I gave above, are. Of course, my definition is fully dialectical and can only grow in strength through discussions as I learn what it leaves out.
It's the fault of that descriptivist disease running around university campuses for the last two decades. Someday a hard rain is gonna fall, and wash all the scum away ... .
Peer review does not limit itself to academic journals, which we have seen in the whole Dan Rather affair. In that, his story was subjected to a peer review and found wanting. What good are dictionary definitions, when we all have different dictionaries? Stipulative definitions are better here, because then we can argue them. Assuming a common definition of such a term is really not possible. I agree with the rest of your points, btw. But I wish to stress responsibility, which you tacitly point out in your reference to boutique journalism. For, journalism connotes believability, which implies trust and responsibility.
I have thought about it, and I have no idea what you mean, since you don't actually give a definition.
/. is well peer reviewed, because it does not attract only one point of view, and the moderation system allows even a savvy non-techie to separate the wheat from the chaf. But it is not journalism; rather, it is a like a newspaper stand with comments scrawled on the surface. Its contributions are largely critical, and not investigative.
What is journalism? First, let's take only one subject of journalism, news journalism (leaving e.g. op-ed and columnists out, for sake of brevity). I would say news journalism a responsible (peer reviewed) and investigative reporting of facts, which may or may not be accompanied by reasoned opinion.
Bloggers in a sense are peer reviewed, but only in a sense: the community of users basically determines the value of a blog, yet the value of that community varies wildly depending on the community itself.
Basically,
Now, many blogs are investigative, and like I said, all are subjected to rudimentary peer review (even if the review is only flamers). But it is rather obvious that many of these are not driven by, nor beholden to, the principles of objectivity and distance (whatever they be worth in the real world, at least they remain as ideals).
So, in short, a case by case review is necessary. The metric, beyond quality of writing, would be the standards of investigation and an acknowledged responsibility toward their readers, as concretised in their respect for peer review.
thanks, but that's too long for a slashdot sig ...
because it won't work, for various reasons (badge swapping, forgetting them at home, losing them, and countless other probs / manipulations).
I am not saying that there is nothing valuable in shows like HDNet World Report, but I am saying that what is dangerous is confusing them with news, when in fact they are nothing more than entertain designed to glue us even more to a hardware and advertising revenue stream.
cheers, potor
It's fun being corrected by a moron.
I am not against his company, or his use of technology. But I am worried about the commodification of everything, including the battle field 'experience,' which has now been reduced officially to being, like, incredible and amazing. I guess it is, when you command a home theatre.
cheers, potor
cheers, potor
just to emphasise parent: before you look at a message; and while.
Moreover, If books were are harmless as the ALA seems to think, nobody would bother to read or write them.
do you object to wire-taps in general, or just with voip?
If the end-users do not pay the VOIP provider for the cost of the wiretap, then the money will ultimately come from taxes. Which method do you think would be more cost-effective and better managed?
Have you ever sat an oral examination? The point is not to 'riff on a theme', but rather to be pushed to the point of your ignorance, which is basically how an oral grade is determined.
When a student is examined orally concerning a paper, the prof goes well beyond questions of content: the arguments are extended into new terrain, research methods are inquired into, methodology and structure are investigated, and so on.
I guess one can always try to bluff, and even be successful at 'owning' the argument. But to be convincingly responsible for the text in its many aspects beyond mere argument, well, that's a lot more work. And difficult.
Moreover, I agree completely with your characterisation of the academic arms race. That's what's so nice about the system of which I am speaking: rather than relying on technology to suss out cheating, the prof can use his own intelligence through the dialectic of the exam. And if cheating is suspected, then the prof can later seek evidence (or simply fail the student objectively for having a weak grasp of the paper, if the oral component of the grade is large enough).
cheers, potor