= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Metaphilosophical Mysteries - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (255)
Sometime ago I was quite surprised to know that Kevin T. Kelly's work on Ockham's Razor, very rigorous and mathematical in nature, falls under "philosophy". Apparently modern philosophy can get quite awesome when it wants to.
(By the way, someone should really write an introductory LW post about this. I thought Johnicholas Hines would do it, but lately he seems to be missing.)
I don't think the work shown on that link would be regarded as typical philosophy -- it's more characteristic of computer science or statistics.
What falls under the category of "typical philosophy", in your opinion?
I didn't have a clear-cut definition in mind then -- I just thought that the Kelly link was far enough from being an edge case.
If I had to say, I would take a random selection of articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and that gives an idea of what typical philosphy is, as the term is normally used.