Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

10 Philosophical Mistakes

  1. Mar 17, 2005 #1
    Has anyone read this book? It is written by Mortimer J. Adler.
    I would like to know you opinions regarding this book.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 17, 2005 #2
    Not really. Can you summerize these "10 philosophical mistakes" for us? Sounds interesting.
  4. Mar 17, 2005 #3
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. Mar 27, 2005 #4
    Let's hope for your sake that "buy this book" is not one of the 10 :biggrin:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. Apr 14, 2005 #5
    Science can operate without philosophy of science...?

    Maybe Adler can tell us if modern sciences which have brought man to the moon and back and also prolonged life expectancy enormously, namely, could have developed without the philosophy of science or the science philosophers?

  7. Apr 14, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Well, obviously science requires an epistemology. If you are to conduct research, you need a methodology by which you conduct research. Scientists use the scientific method, which is a product of epistemology. The method was first developed by a philosopher, Francis Bacon.
  8. Apr 14, 2005 #7
    Men of science before the philosophy of science...?

    I am trying to find a way to put dense and abstruse philosophical writings, specially of some philosophical thinkers today, into simple English so that people can get the ideas such thinkers are trying to tell the world.

    On the naive assumption that scientists can explain things better than philosophers, even explain philosophers and their writings better than philosophers themselves, I come to entertain the idea that maybe if we get really good scientists and science writers to explain philosophy and philosophers, then we might just see what they are talking about, most specially those who talk unlike Adler.

    Francis Bacon, was he a compiler of methods employed by people of the past and of his times, men we would now today call scientists, or did he think out the epistemology of science from out of the blue?

    During his days and before his birth in the past there had always been engineers and technicians, for example, men who thought of ways and means to raise giant structures like the pyramids, the highways of imperial Rome, aqueducts, and build war machines, construct seafaring vessels, they are what we would today call scientists because they were doing science as they figured out how to produce their small and big and colossal contrivances.

    These were men who did not have to read philosophy of science to achieve their extraordinary feats of structure and machinery -- because there was no philosophy of science then...(?)

    Suppose those dense and abstruse philosophers of today write their ideas in the methodology of a term paper in a science report as we do in high school and also in college.

    That should enable them to produce their ideas clearly and briefly, and maybe they might decide to not bring them out and convince thinking people about their worth.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook