View Single Post
Old 24th November 2012, 07:45 PM   #48
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
I think of science and philosophy as the difference between cartography and exploration. The scientist is tasked with mapping the world and the map is the point. "Here, look at this, this is what I have discovered about the world and how it is."

Philosophy is more about exploration. "Here, hop on. We are going this way and invite you to come along and see what you can see. I'll be pointing out places of interest as we proceed."

When I read science, I am a spectator, a fan in the stands who remembers stats, good plays and who scored what goal. When I read philosophy, I am immersed in the game, playing it myself.

The purposes are different, the goals different, and the experience is different. I would no more fault philosophy as stupid as I would say that science fails because it cannot tell me the phone number for my mother-in-law. If I want her phone number, I look it up in a directory. If I want to diagnose her illness, I look to the science of medicine. If I want to talk to her about whether she has a duty to promote the welfare of her grandchildren, I might try a little ethics by way of philosophy.

How come mathematics doesn't get the "no real benefit" or "nothing new of importance" broad brush treatment? Have you any idea how far afield mathematicians are? It's to the point that most of them can't even understand what most of the others are even up to. Talk about inbred. Lay off philosophers and take a tour of the math department.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top