Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
In the heat of the moment, perhaps this discussion is turning chaotic.
And I for one am confused about a lot of what has been said, especially since this thread is asking what time is and it's under the Philosophy of Science umbrella.
So to imply that we shouldn't discuss the nature of time or even propose that it doesn't exist because 'science uses it and it works' so therefore it exists seems rather unfair.
So maybe I'm wrong here or quite possibly missing the point. What is the difference between 'Philosophy of Science' and just plain 'Philosophy'? And I don't want a reference to a body of work, I want a short and sweet version - something to the point. .
|
Despite my disagreements with AnssiH, I think he has done an admirable job of explaining the purpose of the philosophy of science. If you read Anssi's last few posts, particularly to me, it's mostly what is discussed. Where a physics theory hints at some ontology, it never seems to describe that ontology with much more than a metaphor. It almost purposefully strips itself of such pursuits. So, there's a gap there and philosophy would do well to fill it.
~modest
