01-03-2003 09:31									#421
	Increase Your PM Length

I actually got curious about that article by Paul Thagard.

Why is it published in a journal such as the one mentioned? I'm guessing that he couldn't get it published in a decent journal. So, to satisfy my curiosity, I looked up the impact factor of "philosophy of science". The impact factor is simply a measurement on how many times articles in the journal are cited by other articles - whether within the same journal or elsewhere. The higher the impact factor, the better the journal.

So, for example, the most important scientific publication, Nature, has an impact factor of 15.68 (as of 2001). Every article in nature is, on average, cited 15.68 times.

The foremost chemical journal, Journal of the American Chemical Society, has an impact factor of 4.88.

A second tier chemistry journal, Journal of Organic Chemistry, has an impact factor of 2.54.

A third tier chemistry journal, for example Tetrahedron, has an impact factor of 1.91.

Normally, anything below third tier is not worth reading. Even if I find an article in a below third tier journal it is usually a waste of my time.

Now, "philosophy of science" has an impact ratio of 0.55. That means that almost half the articles are never even cited once!

To find something of equal low quality in chemistry I had to go faaaaaaar down the list... To the reals of journals such as "Finnish Chemical Letters" and "Chemie Analen - Warsaw". None of them are published in english, BTW.

So, basically, "philosphy of science" has equal importance to society and science as an obscure journal in finnish... Wow...

I should also mention that "Philosophy of Science" has an "internal citation" factor of 0.88. This means that 88% of the articles that cite an article from "Philosophy of Science" are in the same field, which further reduces the actual value of the publication. An article in "Philosophy of Science" only has 0.12 * 0.55 = 0.066 (6.6%) chance of being cited in an actual science journal

Well, so far for the claim that it contributs to science. At least it provided me with a good laugh.

BTW, what is the official abbreviation of "Philosophy of Science"? "PoSe"?

	01-03-2003 09:34									#422
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Arguing about whether or not reality exists is like arguing about whether or not God exists, or similar nonsense. Has anybody actually ever actually progressed in these studies or is it simply a matter of belief?

Look, you've really misunderstood me. The point is about realism and anti-realism the notion of whether the meanings of the statements we make are tied to some form of evidence or whether they are not.

For example, an anti-realist has a good argument against the notion of God's existence precisely because he ties meaning to evidence (anti-realism is verificationist just like logical positivism). Since there is no evidence one way or another for the sentence "God exists" that sentence is meaningless - those who think it is making a claim are in fact mistaken.

There is a connection here between philosophy and science since many people think that our use of language in response to the environment must be tied in some interesting way to sensory stimulation - this being what prompts assent to sentences.

Anyway, goodnight.

	01-03-2003 09:35									#423
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

GePap:

quote: And the single most important event in the story of mankind happened 10,000 years ago (agriculture and animal husbandry). Until you science eggsheads come up with somethign as fundamental, don't go harping about time.

What does this prove, exactly?

quote: As I said: you guys may make all new stuff, but it is us philosophers, humanists, and social scientist who come up whith what they should be used for. We also pay your bills (lawyers make the tax code, the law and hence control the money) so pipe down, or you will get no funding!

You actually believe that?

Well, that's part of the reason I left Europe

	01-03-2003 09:38									#424
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Well I am quite prepared to agree that there is practical justification for using it - theoretical justification is something else entirely. You may not be interested in this but plenty of people are.

And those people are engaged in what real scientists refer to as "intellectual masturbation". It might feel nice, but it doesn't lead anywhere.

quote: Well I thought the meanings of the statements were quite different, so it was rather a pointless question. Actually, looking at it, it is a completely pointless question.

Of course it is pointless. You can't answer it, so it is pointless. Ergo, of whatever you say.

I'd love to read some of your college essays as well...

	01-03-2003 09:40									#425
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Throw off the yoke of philosophy? What yoke?

The yoke that said that if Arestotele says one thing, and observations say another, then observations are wrong.

You'd know if you'd studied any history of science

	01-03-2003 09:40									#426
	Increase Your PM Length

BTW, what exactly is "cognitive science"?

	01-03-2003 09:43									#427
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu I actually got curious about that article by Paul Thagard. Why is it published in a journal such as the one mentioned? I'm guessing that he couldn't get it published in a decent journal. So, to satisfy my curiosity, I looked up the impact factor of "philosophy of science". The impact factor is simply a measurement on how many times articles in the journal are cited by other articles - whether within the same journal or elsewhere. The higher the impact factor, the better the journal. So, for example, the most important scientific publication, Nature, has an impact factor of 15.68 (as of 2001). Every article in nature is, on average, cited 15.68 times. The foremost chemical journal, Journal of the American Chemical Society, has an impact factor of 4.88. A second tier chemistry journal, Journal of Organic Chemistry, has an impact factor of 2.54. A third tier chemistry journal, for example Tetrahedron, has an impact factor of 1.91. Normally, anything below third tier is not worth reading. Even if I find an article in a below third tier journal it is usually a waste of my time. Now, "philosophy of science" has an impact ratio of 0.55. That means that almost half the articles are never even cited once! To find something of equal low quality in chemistry I had to go faaaaaaar down the list... To the reals of journals such as "Finnish Chemical Letters" and "Chemie Analen - Warsaw". None of them are published in english, BTW. So, basically, "philosphy of science" has equal importance to society and science as an obscure journal in finnish... Wow... I should also mention that "Philosophy of Science" has an "internal citation" factor of 0.88. This means that 88% of the articles that cite an article from "Philosophy of Science" are in the same field, which further reduces the actual value of the publication. An article in "Philosophy of Science" only has 0.12 * 0.55 = 0.066 (6.6%) chance of being cited in an actual science journal Well, so far for the claim that it contributs to science. At least it provided me with a good laugh. BTW, what is the official abbreviation of "Philosophy of Science"? "PoSe"?

This doesn't strike me as wildly profound.

Um. I would think it wildly inappropriate that a philosophy of science article would be published in "Nature" so this doesn't surprise me at all. Most scientific research doesn't require philosophical input since most scientific publications report empirical results. Philosophy tends to be about conceptual inquiry. On the other hand scientific articles get reported in philosophy quite a lot (especially neuroscience stuff) because that is useful for solving the problems philosophers are interested in (that doesn't mean that they solve the problems, it means they contribute worthwhile information.

But generally disciplines stick to their own journals: although you will find reference to philosophers a lot in things like linguistics, cog sci and in psych (I'd like to see the figures on this).

	01-03-2003 09:46									#428
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think you misunderstood his post.

	01-03-2003 09:50									#429
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: This doesn't strike me as wildly profound.

So you agree that you should have known your claims were bunk a long time ago? Well, that is a step forward, I suppose.

quote: Um. I would think it wildly inappropriate that a philosophy of science article would be published in "Nature" so this doesn't surprise me at all. Most scientific research doesn't require philosophical input since most scientific publications report empirical results.

*sigh*
Which is the point. Science does not need philosophy. Whether philosophy uses science is completely irrelevant. You've basically set philosophy on the exact same level as I've claimed 15 pages ago: entertainment.

Science does not need entertainment. Entertainment does need science.

	01-03-2003 09:52									#430
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu The yoke that said that if Arestotele says one thing, and observations say another, then observations are wrong. You'd know if you'd studied any history of science

Um - you know I'd agree with you on this one, but I'd like to report that Aristotle beating is a common pastime amongst scientists and it's not always done fairly. They often report him making strange claims that he never actually made.

But philosophy is a lot different than Aristotle and much friendlier to scientific thinking than you seem to think.

quote: what is cognitive science?

The study of the human mind based on the "cognitive revolution". It is anti-behaviourist and engaged in the idea of thinking about the human mind as though it were a computer. It is sort of a mix between science, psych, linguistics, computer science and the philosophy of mind. It's a relatively new discipline and may well splinter off from all these departments.

The Thagard book I referred to earlier is an introductory text. I get the feeling that if you read it you might not be so harsh on philosophy. Philosophy of Mind is much more representative of what people are doing now than Aristotle. Only people like me - philosophers *** classicists *** historians of ideas - study Aristotle.

	01-03-2003 09:54									#431
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: But philosophy is a lot different than Aristotle and much friendlier to scientific thinking than you seem to think.

I don't think philosophy is against science. I just think it is irrelevant.

	01-03-2003 09:55									#432
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon The study of the human mind based on the "cognitive revolution". It is anti-behaviourist and engaged in the idea of thinking about the human mind as though it were a computer.

What kind of a computer, digital or analog?

So it treats everything has either a 1 or a 0, right or wrong?

	01-03-2003 09:56									#433
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Regarding cognitive science: thanks

	01-03-2003 10:01									#434
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu So you agree that you should have known your claims were bunk a long time ago? Well, that is a step forward, I suppose. *sigh* Which is the point. Science does not need philosophy. Whether philosophy uses science is completely irrelevant. You've basically set philosophy on the exact same level as I've claimed 15 pages ago: entertainment.

Um no. I'd attribute it to the fact that most scientific papers published are about concrete issues rather than the extremely abstract issues dealt with in the philosophy of science. Presumably the question "what is knowledge?" or the question "is theory underdetermined by evidence?" is relevant to any scientific project. Scientists don't tend to worry about this - most of them are like Frogger, quite happy to potter along conducting experiments without worrying about such things - it is after all a very pragmatically oriented enterprise (and that is how it should be). That doesn't mean that thinking about the grounds of scientific truth is a waste of time.

After all the claim "science does not need philosophy to keep conducting experiments and publishing papers" is different from the claim, "science does not need philosophy to think about problems like induction". Scientists ignore the problem of induction (rightly so, or they'd never get any work done) but it would be nice to solve it for it would provide a knock down argument against those people who want to equate the current scientific faith in induction to other more dubious sorts of faith.

	01-03-2003 10:02									#435
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: most of them are like Frogger, quite happy to potter along conducting experiments

If you call me an experimentalist again, then I'm going to stop fooling around and start arguing for real.

	01-03-2003 10:02									#436
	Inflate your Upload Space

Anyway, goodnight all. My wife wants to use the computer. This is a fun debate - I haven't had to stick up for us in a while.

	01-03-2003 10:04									#437
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: most of them are like Frogger, quite happy to potter along conducting experiments If you call me an experimentalist again, then I'm going to stop fooling around and start arguing for real.

Oh sorry, I remember that you said you were a physicist - you must be a theoretical physicist? Actually, arguing for real would be better.

	01-03-2003 10:08									#438
	Support Apolyton

quote: A young physicist, upon learning that he was denied tenure after six productive years at a University in San Francisco, requested a meeting with the Provost for an explanation, and a possible appeal. At the meeting, the Provost told the young physicist, "I'm sorry to tell you that the needs of the University have shifted somewhat, during the past six-years leading up to your tenure decision. In point of fact, what we now require is a female, condensed-matter experimentalist. Unfortunately, you are a male, high-energy theorist!" Dejected but not defeated, the young physicist thought for a moment about the implications of the Provost's words. "Sir," he said, "I would be willing to convert in two of the three categories you mention, but ... I'll never agree to become an experimentalist!"

	01-03-2003 10:10									#439
	Put an end to popups!

Hah. Found in searching for the previous joke:

quote: "A priest, a drunkard and a physicist were condemned to die by the guillotine. The priest is led up to the guillotine and is asked if he prefers to be facing up or down. He replies "I would like my last earthly sight to be of heaven". The executioner than fastens him in face up and releases the guillotine blade. It falls, but stops just within an inch of his throat. "A miracle!" the crowd of spectators shout in unison, and the priest is released unharmed. Next, the drunkard is led up the steps and he is asked if he prefers to face up or down. "Upward", he replied, "so that I can drink, one last time, some good wine you pour down my throat!" After the drunkard is given a drink, the huge blade is released and plummets downward, but stops within an inch of his throat. "Mon Dieu! A second miracle!" the crowd cheers, and he is released unharmed. Finally, the physicist is led up to be executed. He also chooses to be shackled to the guillotine face up. The crowd is placing bets left and right about whether a third miracle will take place. As he lies face up, he ponders the death apparatus above him. Raising his hand, moments before the executioner releases the blade, the physicist declares, "Wait, wait! ... I see what your problem is!"

	01-03-2003 21:38									#440
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Philosophers deal with what makes us trully human, our sentience, this ability we seem to have to think in the abstract, and all it implies. If philosophers are still arguing the same points as they were three thousand years ago, it is because man has not changed significantly in those thousands of years, which is why art of that time still resonates with us.

The best way I could think to pose the difference between the Ashers' Froggers, and Cybergnu's on one side, and Agathon and his suporter on the other is this:

Scientist of the current mode expand the realm of what is possible for man to do, by exploring the workings of the world we live in and its applications. Yet making something possibe is not the same as making it real: scientist made the Nuclear bomb possible, but it was only when other decided it should be built that it was made real. Those other's are not scientist, but people trained in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and all of them making their decisions based on sets of assumptions, codes, and so on formed by philosophers accross the ages.

Even our level of technology makes many, many different worlds possible, but again, while possibilities are vital, what really impacts the lives of the billions of humans living today is which, and how, these possibilities become realities. Theoretical physicists in a lab are not the ones to make those choices, not the ones who make those decisions, becuase in the end, they are not trained to do it.

As for why philosophy must continue? Becuase one day you "possibilities boys" will come up with something trully new, something that will make the codes and ethics we use to make the decisions outdated: and who then will create the new codes needed? The scientists? Hardly.

	02-03-2003 00:25									#441
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Hah. Found in searching for the previous joke: quote: "A priest, a drunkard and a physicist....

I've heard it before. New Zealanders often tell this joke against themselves (you'd understand if you'd lived there).

I have a question, has anybody here been reading the Sokal/Bricmont book on abuses of scientific concepts by French philosophers? If you have, please don't tar us english speaking analytic philosophers with the same brush as those clowns.

	02-03-2003 00:27									#442
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by GePap As for why philosophy must continue? Becuase one day you "possibilities boys" will come up with something trully new, something that will make the codes and ethics we use to make the decisions outdated: and who then will create the new codes needed? The scientists? Hardly.

It's happening now in medical ethics with some reproductive technologies (that's one reason why philosophers are making so much money lecturing about these things). One problem in IVF is who exercises parental rights - the birth mother or the biological mother?

	02-03-2003 04:05									#443
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Asher, here is an example of a philosophical treatise on mind and AI:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...#01951064665121

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness
by Roger Penrose

While the guy is from a math department, his work clearly belongs to the realm of philosophy.

quote: A leading critic of artificial intelligence research returns to the attack, attempting to lay the groundwork for an analysis of the true nature of intelligence. Building on his arguments in The Emperor's New Mind (not reviewed), Penrose (Mathematics/Oxford) begins by refuting the assertion that true intelligence can be attained--or even adequately simulated--by the strictly computational means to which current computers are ultimately limited. Much of his argument depends closely on the application of G”del's Undecidability Theorem to Turing machines--deep waters for laypeople, although the fundamentals of his argument are accessible to readers without sophisticated mathematical training. Having disposed of the central tenets of current AI research, Penrose then turns to an even more fundamental question: the actual foundations in modern physics (i.e., relativity and quantum theory) of the phenomenon of consciousness. Here much of his summary depends on fairly complex mathematical reasoning, although the key points are summarized for the general reader who has been willing to follow him so far. Penrose feels that a new physical synthesis, reconciling the paradoxes of quantum theory and bringing them into harmony with Einstein's gravitational theories, is ultimately necessary to explain the noncomputational elements of consciousness and intelligence. He speculates on the possible role of cellular structures called microtubules in creating a quantum phenomenon on a macroscopic scale within the brain, but grants that more research is needed to establish any connection between physical and mental phenomena. His conclusion steps back to a philosophical overview of the subject, paying homage to Plato, among others. A challenging examination of a central problem of modern philosophy, with no final answers but plenty of food for thought.

	02-03-2003 05:36									#444
	Got spare money?

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell this debate is about.

	02-03-2003 05:54									#445
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by The Vagabond Asher, here is an example of a philosophical treatise on mind and AI: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...#01951064665121 Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose While the guy is from a math department, his work clearly belongs to the realm of philosophy.

At least one of the people on this thread has a really negative opinion of Penrose, although one needn't agree with him for your point to be sound.

	02-03-2003 05:54									#446
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't know much about Penrose, but I've heard negative things about him from other physics people.

	02-03-2003 08:29									#447
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: It's happening now in medical ethics with some reproductive technologies (that's one reason why philosophers are making so much money lecturing about these things). One problem in IVF is who exercises parental rights - the birth mother or the biological mother?

Good point Agathon.

Just one problem among many within Biomedical Ethics.

All those who believe philosophy has no contribution to make to the real world needs to look here for a rebuttal.

We rely on the philosophers to sort some of these thorny problems arising as technology interacts with society.

Frogger: Why don't you read the founder of scientific method, Descartes? His discourse on the method of philosophical and scientific inquiry examines some of your 'realism/anti-realism' questions.

	02-03-2003 08:53									#448
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't know asingle person who waits to hear what the philophers say about medical ethicists (at least not those at universities)

most listen to their pastor, or herb supplier, or union organizer or scientist

as far as I can tell, the place for philosophers is to talk to eachother while the rst of the world reaches understandings about life

Jon Miller

	02-03-2003 08:59									#449
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller I don't know asingle person who waits to hear what the philophers say about medical ethicists (at least not those at universities) most listen to their pastor, or herb supplier, or union organizer or scientist Jon Miller

No wonder the world is in such a state. I suggest you attend a course on medical ethics, which is mandatory in many health care systems these days. Or learn about how a hospital ethics committee works.

We are talking about applied ethics here; not navel gazing. It's a lucrative business these days.

No scientist qua scientist can tell us the least thing about ethics.

	02-03-2003 09:02									#450
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

why should I listen to people who tell me how to beleive?

I will listen to those who think similiarly to I, or those I trust, ect

some random philopher doesn't mean anything to me ethics wise (a random catholic preist would mean more
, and I am not catholic)

Jon Miller