The "classifications" of science
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2015, 06:23 PM
The "classifications" of science
I found this passage in a tome that I'm reading, and I thought of the Thinking Atheist Forum specifically when I came across it. I wanted to toss it your way to see your thoughts on the matter. Here's the passage.

It starts off by stating that one science is under another science in two ways. I want to focus on the first way that one science is under another (bolded emphasis is mine):

Quote:"The first [way] is when one science is a branch of another broader science, since it only studies a part of the other science, e.g. inorganic chemistry is a branch of the broader science of chemistry. The second way is when one science is subalternated to another science and by this St. Thomas means that the one science receives its principles from another science, e.g., the science of epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic and metaphysics. Therefore, in the consideration of the subject matter of the science, one must also consider if it is a branch of a broader science, i.e. if a science studies a subject matter which is covered at least in part by another science which considers the object of study more absolutely. In this case, the higher science will supply the lower science with conclusions about the object of study and that science assumes those conclusions as principles in its reasoning. The subject matter in philosophy is called the material object."


#1. So, my general question is: What do you think of this passage? Do you agree with it, or do you disagree with it?

Simpler, more broken down questions are:

#2. Do you believe that one science recieves its principles from another science?

#3. Do you believe that epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic, and metaphysics?

#4. Taking the passage a bit further, if we assume its statement to be true, then isn't it very very important for all of the subalternated sciences to be based on a solid, proven, and immutable parent science?

-

Excl On the ignore list: Taqiyya Mockingbird, Minimalist, DemonicLemon, GirlyMan, WhiskeyDebates, and EvolutionKills.
-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 07:09 PM
RE: The "classifications" of science
(28-02-2015 06:23 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  I found this passage in a tome that I'm reading, and I thought of the Thinking Atheist Forum specifically when I came across it. I wanted to toss it your way to see your thoughts on the matter. Here's the passage.

It starts off by stating that one science is under another science in two ways. I want to focus on the first way that one science is under another (bolded emphasis is mine):

Quote:"The first [way] is when one science is a branch of another broader science, since it only studies a part of the other science, e.g. inorganic chemistry is a branch of the broader science of chemistry. The second way is when one science is subalternated to another science and by this St. Thomas means that the one science receives its principles from another science, e.g., the science of epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic and metaphysics. Therefore, in the consideration of the subject matter of the science, one must also consider if it is a branch of a broader science, i.e. if a science studies a subject matter which is covered at least in part by another science which considers the object of study more absolutely. In this case, the higher science will supply the lower science with conclusions about the object of study and that science assumes those conclusions as principles in its reasoning. The subject matter in philosophy is called the material object."


#1. So, my general question is: What do you think of this passage? Do you agree with it, or do you disagree with it?

I disagree with it. Vehemently.
It has am assumption that there are branches of science that somehow exist in a Platonic fashion. The fact is, all of those branches of science are human definitions and demarcations.

Quote:Simpler, more broken down questions are:

#2. Do you believe that one science recieves its principles from another science?

No. There is science.

Quote:#3. Do you believe that epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic, and metaphysics?

My impression would be the reverse.

Quote:#4. Taking the passage a bit further, if we assume its statement to be true, then isn't it very very important for all of the subalternated sciences to be based on a solid, proven, and immutable parent science?

I don't assume it's true.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 01:26 AM
RE: The "classifications" of science
(28-02-2015 06:23 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  I found this passage in a tome that I'm reading, and I thought of the Thinking Atheist Forum specifically when I came across it. I wanted to toss it your way to see your thoughts on the matter. Here's the passage.

It starts off by stating that one science is under another science in two ways. I want to focus on the first way that one science is under another (bolded emphasis is mine):

Quote:"The first [way] is when one science is a branch of another broader science, since it only studies a part of the other science, e.g. inorganic chemistry is a branch of the broader science of chemistry. The second way is when one science is subalternated to another science and by this St. Thomas means that the one science receives its principles from another science, e.g., the science of epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic and metaphysics. Therefore, in the consideration of the subject matter of the science, one must also consider if it is a branch of a broader science, i.e. if a science studies a subject matter which is covered at least in part by another science which considers the object of study more absolutely. In this case, the higher science will supply the lower science with conclusions about the object of study and that science assumes those conclusions as principles in its reasoning. The subject matter in philosophy is called the material object."


#1. So, my general question is: What do you think of this passage? Do you agree with it, or do you disagree with it?

Simpler, more broken down questions are:

#2. Do you believe that one science recieves its principles from another science?

#3. Do you believe that epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic, and metaphysics?

#4. Taking the passage a bit further, if we assume its statement to be true, then isn't it very very important for all of the subalternated sciences to be based on a solid, proven, and immutable parent science?

It's arguing about what route the pigeons are taking to get into the artificially contrived pigeon holes. When you take a close look at science, the distinction between the various different branches goes wobbly around the edges and is really only useful for figuring out which department head you report to.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
01-03-2015, 02:45 AM
RE: The "classifications" of science
Chas wrote down my thoughts (not for the first time) on this.

So I'll just do some ankle-biting instead. Not really.

I was more intrigued by this...

(28-02-2015 06:23 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  ...
I thought of the Thinking Atheist Forum specifically when I came across it.
...

Why would one read about scientific classifications and automatically think of an atheism-based discussion forum.

I couldn't follow the chain of thought.

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
01-03-2015, 05:20 AM
RE: The "classifications" of science
(28-02-2015 06:23 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  the science of epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic and metaphysics.
#1. So, my general question is: What do you think of this passage? Do you agree with it, or do you disagree with it?

I think the text is using "science" in a sense that is inconsistent with that which is taught in science departments. That is, it is using "science" in a sense that includes philosophical and mathematical fields rather than strictly empirical fields. I think that a text that intends to convey information clearly should avoid using terms with disputed meaning, should use terms in their common sense, or should be clear and rigorous in how it uses the term. Otherwise we are left with bad philosophers glomming into the success of the various fields of science to increase the appeal of less fruitful branches of the tree of knowledge.

(28-02-2015 06:23 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  #2. Do you believe that one science recieves its principles from another science?

I think that there are principles that all scientists can agree on, but the broader we go in accepting a field as "science" the more watered down that list of principles becomes. Clearly there are scientists and philosophers of science who make their mark by studying ideas in one field and applying them in another. Science does what is useful, and cross-pollination of useful ideas is one way it does that.

(28-02-2015 06:23 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  #3. Do you believe that epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic, and metaphysics?

It would seem there are connections between these fields, but to say one receives its principles from another is to unnecessarily bias the reader in favour of one field or the other or to perceive one field as dominant over another. In reality it is surely the ideas themselves that dominate both fields, rather than one field dominating another.

(28-02-2015 06:23 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  #4. Taking the passage a bit further, if we assume its statement to be true, then isn't it very very important for all of the subalternated sciences to be based on a solid, proven, and immutable parent science?

It is very important for all sciences to be based on sound philosophical and methodological foundations. Beyond that statement I think we are in the land of bias and appeal to dominance: My field's philosophical penis is bigger than your field's philosophical penis. My field's dad can beat up your field's dad.

What matters is what works. Science favours that which produces results.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
01-03-2015, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015 09:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The "classifications" of science
There is no such think as "immutable parent science".
Science is a METHOD. By definition it's not immutable. There is nothing about any of the steps in the method that references "unchanging" anything.
By definition, it changes as more information comes in.
It's perfectly obvious where he's going with this.
Who gives a rat's ass what Aquinas says about anything ? Time to join the 21st Century. Aquinas was not a scientist.
There is no branch of science that has anything that's "immutable".
It's hilarious religionists *need* to try to appropriate the principles of science into their cults to try to justify their garbage in 2015.
Slowly, over the last 350 years or so, Homo sapiens has adopted science as its working model of reality. As religion recedes into the Dark Ages, religionists try to hop on/off the right bus to at least appear to be intelligent. I think Sucipe Dumshit has a forum called "The Sacred Sciences" .. or maybe that's Catholic Answers. LMFAO

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: The "classifications" of science
Oh that's right. I'm on the ignore list. I usually don't notice such thing as I am using the mobile version which doesn't display the list. I remember why now. This is the guy who posts long crazy videos whose core tenets he disagrees with, and my pointing that out was too much to bear. I must have been having an uncharacteristically candid day: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid459551

So why post here at all if the people who are likely to respond are all on the ignore list? I'm not following the logic.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
01-03-2015, 10:06 AM
RE: The "classifications" of science
(01-03-2015 07:34 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ...
So why post here at all if the people who are likely to respond are all on the ignore list? I'm not following the logic.

I think it's obvious.

He's at the beginning of his de-conversion journey and is seeking your help.

Excellent, well-measured and thoughtful reply, btw.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
01-03-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: The "classifications" of science
(01-03-2015 07:34 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So why post here at all if the people who are likely to respond are all on the ignore list? I'm not following the logic.

Makes sense to me. There are several who come here because they like to hear themselves talk and every other forum has given them the boot.

Have you met CartilageoftheWild or some of the others who talk to themselves on a regular basis?

Maybe the ignore function needs a 'select all' option. Tongue

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
01-03-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: The "classifications" of science
(01-03-2015 10:10 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 07:34 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So why post here at all if the people who are likely to respond are all on the ignore list? I'm not following the logic.

Makes sense to me. There are several who come here because they like to hear themselves talk and every other forum has given them the boot.

Have you met CartilageoftheWild or some of the others who talk to themselves on a regular basis?

Maybe the ignore function needs a 'select all' option. Tongue

"Cartilage-for-a-Brain"... Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: