In article ,
 William Morse  wrote:

> john_SPAM{at}wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
> news:c7778f$a2t$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 
> 
> > We shall endeavor to avoid postmodernist claims about science (I do
> > wonder why postmodernist commentators even bother to address science -
> > if everything is so relative, then they'd do better addressing
> > clothing design or automotive sales) in our course.
> 
> My webster's defines modern as extending to the present time. So anything 
> postmodern doesn't exist - which seems to be correct :-)

"Modernism", though, was an architectural movement of the 1940s and 50s. 
So of course we shall define our worldviews around it...
>  
> > However, it is my impression that scientists will do anything they
> > can, use anything they can, and justify themselves anyway they can, to
> > do their research. Philosophy is one of the things they will employ
> > with blithe disregard for the niceties, or sometimes even the content,
> > of the philosophical debate. Popper is perhaps the most abused thinker
> > in this respect (not that he doesn't deserve it :-)
> 
> > What I find more interesting is the way that the ruminations of
> > scientists such as Dawkins and Gould seem to generate more
> > philosophical speculation and development than do the ideas of
> > philosophers. For example, Dawkins has inspired Hull, Sterelny,
> > Griffiths and a host of others, while Mario Bunge, who writes
> > "biophilosophy" seems to sink without a trace, despite
being a senior
> > and respected continental philosopher. And there are the defenders of
> > Gould and his colleagues amongst the philosophical community (Lisa
> > Lloyd, for example). 
>  
> > In part this is due to the fact that philosophers had for a long time
> > relied upon folk biology and naive "intuitions" (about
tigers, the
> > dog, the essence of being human, and so forth; Umberto Eco has a nice
> > quote in the volume _Kant and the Platypus_); but real biology is more
> > interesting, and so the reflections of someone who has a better grasp
> > of real biology than the average philosopher (which is probably the
> > case for any graduate student in biology) will tend to be more
> > productive. 
>  
> > But it is changing. More philosophers of biology are learning the real
> > science, and collaborating with reflective scientists. Sober and
> > Wilson are such a pair, and Hull has worked with several scientists
> > recently (an immunologist among them).
> 
> 
> Again based on Webster's, philosophy is love of wisdom. I had always 
> thought sophos was better defined as knowledge than as wisdom. Which 
> means you need to learn the real science if you want to be a philosopher. 
> And in any case, philosophy should not be simply love of argumentation, 
> although this may be a necessary condition for a philosopher:-)  As long 
> as philosophy remains grounded in reality (note I say grounded in not 
> fixated on), it will be both vital and important. I don't know what you 
> think of Dennett, but his writing is very approachable, which is a virtue 
> not to be lightly discounted as long as one is reasonably fair.
> 
I wouldn't treat etymology as a reliable guide in this regard. 
"Sophists" for example were not exactly (according to Plato) wise men.

Dennett knows a lot, but rather less IMO than his conclusions warrant. 
His criticisms of Gould are not compelling, because so far as I can see 
the differences between his position, stated baldly, and Gould's were 
minimal in matters of fact. So it came down to personal aesthetics in 
the end, and he made some broad claims. Of course, so did Gould.

My own view is that neither was correct in the end.

-- 
John Wilkins
john_SPAM{at}wilkins.id.au  www.wilkins.id.au
Non scholae, sed vitae discimus
[We learn for life, not for school] Seneca, epistolae morales 106,12
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 5/5/04 12:43:54 PM