- #1
IntellectIsStrength
- 51
- 0
Has anyone read this book? It is written by Mortimer J. Adler.
I would like to know you opinions regarding this book.
I would like to know you opinions regarding this book.
Have Scientists Always Been Philosophers in Disguise?
- Thread starter IntellectIsStrength
- Start date
In summary: What a great question! We would need to study their writings to see if their methodology would be effective in producing their ideas clearly and concisely.
- #2
Icebreaker
Not really. Can you summerize these "10 philosophical mistakes" for us? Sounds interesting.
- #3
IntellectIsStrength
- 51
- 0
I haven't read it yet. I just ordered it and I will be getting it shortly. I'll summerize the key points of the book once I read it myself.
In the mean time, the following links will offer some interesting information regarding this book.
http://www.ephilosopher.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNAmazon&file=index2&asin=068481868X
In the mean time, the following links will offer some interesting information regarding this book.
http://www.ephilosopher.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNAmazon&file=index2&asin=068481868X
Last edited by a moderator:
- #4
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
Let's hope for your sake that "buy this book" is not one of the 10IntellectIsStrength said:
Last edited by a moderator:
- #5
yrreg
- 34
- 1
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?
yrreg
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?
yrreg
- #6
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 1,830
- 5
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.
- #7
yrreg
- 34
- 1
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.
yrreg
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.
yrreg
1. What are some common philosophical mistakes addressed in "10 Philosophical Mistakes"?
In "10 Philosophical Mistakes", common philosophical mistakes such as circular reasoning, false dichotomies, and fallacies are addressed.
2. How can "10 Philosophical Mistakes" help improve critical thinking skills?
By bringing attention to common philosophical mistakes, "10 Philosophical Mistakes" can help individuals become more aware of their own thought processes and avoid making these mistakes in their reasoning, leading to improved critical thinking skills.
3. Is "10 Philosophical Mistakes" focused on a specific philosophical perspective?
No, "10 Philosophical Mistakes" addresses common mistakes that can occur in any philosophical perspective, making it applicable to a wide range of philosophical discussions and debates.
4. Can "10 Philosophical Mistakes" be helpful for non-philosophers?
Yes, the concepts and examples in "10 Philosophical Mistakes" are presented in a clear and accessible manner, making it useful for individuals who are not well-versed in philosophy but are interested in improving their critical thinking skills.
5. Are there any real-world applications for the insights presented in "10 Philosophical Mistakes"?
Yes, understanding and avoiding common philosophical mistakes can be useful in a variety of fields, such as law, politics, and everyday decision-making, where critical thinking and sound reasoning are important.
Similar threads
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
Classical Physics
-
General Discussion