[FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

[Frank Wimberly]

As a well-known philosopher once said, any one who criticizes philosophy is
a fellow philosopher.  I can cite the reference if anyone cares.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Sep 20, 2017 9:27 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Peirce’s Pragmati[ci]sm is actually a generalization of the logic of
> experimental science to all of philosophy.  Quite splendid, actually.
>
>
>
> By the way, the Feynman quote is really dumb, and it’s annoying that
> people keep trotting it out as if it was sage.  The reason birds can’t make
> use of ornithology is they can’t read. Think how useful it would be for a
> cuckoo host to be able to spend a few hours reading a text on egg
> identification.   Is the reason physicists can’t make use of philosophy of
> science that they can’t think?  I doubt anyone who cites this “aphorism”
> would come to that conclusion.  Bad metaphor.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven A
> Smith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:51 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
>
>
>
> Tangentially on the topic of Philosophy v. Physics,  in my review of
> Dempster-Shaffer (to avoid making too stupid of misrepresentations on my
> bumper-sticker) I was fascinated to find Raymond Smullyan's "Types of
> Reasoners" reduced to formal logic (but also couched in natural language
> explanations).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic#Types_of_reasoners
>
> FWIW, I contend that *LOGIC* is used (critical to) in the natural sciences
> but does not *arise from* them... it arises from Philosophy (Epistemology)
> and is formalized in Mathematics and merely USED by Science.
>
> I don't know if someone already quoted Feynman on the topic:
>     "philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to
> birds."
>
> I suspect that if birds had the type of consciousness that included
> self-image/awareness and the abstractions of language, that *some* would at
> least find ornithology *interesting* and might even find some practical
> ways to apply what they learn from "the study of birds".    But no, for the
> first part it wouldn't make them better fliers, predators, foragers,
> scavengers, etc.   And most *good* Scientists I know don't know much about
> or care about the larger roles of Epistemology and Metaphysics, which
> *sometimes* leads them to believe they have answered the hard questions
> outside of the bounds of Empirical Science *with* Empirical Science?   Like
> the "spherical cow", they just "assume away" the features that their
> measurements and models don't/can't address (much less answer).
>
> Mumble,
>  - Steve
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170920/268fb467/attachment.html>