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 :-)
 
> 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.


Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 6:28:44 AM