Yes, I may have made an inferential leap here that was wrong or unnecessary. You and I agree very strongly on there being a distinction between Philosophy of Science and Experimental Philosophy. I wanted to draw a distinction between the kind of, “street philosophy” done by Socrates and the more rigorous, mathematical Philosophy of Science. “Experiment” may not have been the most appropriate verbiage.
I would be glad to reconsider my stance that this rationalist community privileges emotivist readings of ethics. I will begin looking into this. My reason for including this argument is the idea (from the article) that when philosophers ask questions about right and wrong or good and bad, they are really asking how people feel about these concepts.
street philosophy” done by Socrates and the more rigorous, mathematical Philosophy of Science.
PoSc done by analyticals is no more rigorous than other analytical philosophy, and PoSc done by continentals is no more rigorous that other continental.
Socrates and co were the analyticals of their day......let not the ungeometered enter the Academy.… with the role of the continentals being taken by the Sophists.
Well said again, and well-considered that ideas in minds can only move forwards through time (not a physical law). My initial reaction to this article was, “What about philosophy of science?” However, it seems my PoSc objections extend to other realms of philosophy as well. Thank you for leading me here.
Nope.
You know Philosophy of Science is a different thing to Experimental Philosophy , right?
Yes, I may have made an inferential leap here that was wrong or unnecessary. You and I agree very strongly on there being a distinction between Philosophy of Science and Experimental Philosophy. I wanted to draw a distinction between the kind of, “street philosophy” done by Socrates and the more rigorous, mathematical Philosophy of Science. “Experiment” may not have been the most appropriate verbiage.
I would be glad to reconsider my stance that this rationalist community privileges emotivist readings of ethics. I will begin looking into this. My reason for including this argument is the idea (from the article) that when philosophers ask questions about right and wrong or good and bad, they are really asking how people feel about these concepts.
PoSc done by analyticals is no more rigorous than other analytical philosophy, and PoSc done by continentals is no more rigorous that other continental.
Socrates and co were the analyticals of their day......let not the ungeometered enter the Academy.… with the role of the continentals being taken by the Sophists.
Well said again, and well-considered that ideas in minds can only move forwards through time (not a physical law). My initial reaction to this article was, “What about philosophy of science?” However, it seems my PoSc objections extend to other realms of philosophy as well. Thank you for leading me here.