GeniusNZ2
3
GeniusNZ2 has not written any posts yet.
OK Caledonian, I think it would help to make explicit your position (others too but first yours) tell me how much I have right....
1) you think that there can be philosophical progress (i.e. not the strong position being argued against above)
2) you think that progress tends not to happen in the field of philosophy (I presume because of how philosophy forms free floating ideas rather than ones 'grounded' by their attachment to empirical evidence)
3) you evaluate 'progress' and 'useful' in a different way to Richard and HA, Richard would find a interesting logical debate... (read more)
A non reductionist might talk about X where X is specifically defined as 'stuff that cannot be reduced'. The reductionist hears the term X and starts to argue how it can be reduced. Point is that the non-reductionist is fundamentally talking about something different.
the solution is that one can use a on reductionist framework to consider the issue (with an associated shift in definitions of words etc) and one can use a reductionist framework or one can take a position somwhere in the middle. In my opinion the reductionist one is more useful - but if the objective is to "understand the non reducible nature of the soul" (trying to be... (read more)
I think those trying to prohibit bad methodology easily fall into talking about it as being by its nature always useless. that people naturally do that doesn't damn their position entirely.