Brandon_Reinhart comments on "Science" as Curiosity-Stopper - Less Wrong

54 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 September 2007 08:04PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (58)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Brandon_Reinhart 03 September 2007 09:59:37PM 0 points [-]

Where is the science in Philosophy? I have recently been reading commentary on one philosopher's account of an epistemology based in perception, conceptualization, and abstraction. This commentary is paired with a critical analysis of the epistemologies of other philosophers, based on the Aristotelian foundations. While reading it, I thought "but there must be one _true_ way the mind comes to terms with reality, a way based in the biology of the brain." A biology whose workings I don't understand and I suspect most philosophers do not understand. After all, one person can only learn so much. Still, it seems that any bold explanation of why we know what we know must be based on some understanding of the inner workings of the brain.

How much of philosophy is just another kind of curiosity-stopper? Or rather are philosophers often building bridges out of "non-knowledge". "Non-knowledge" being a made up word to describe complicated explanations that lack truth value. Philosophers often test their theories by quizzing each other, one attempting to convince the other of a particular position. This kind of test doesn't seem sufficiently rigorous to be considered scientific.