« Missoura News | Main | FOTWGLG »
August 26, 2006
Language and Knowledge
From Bertrand Russell's "Logical Positivism" (1950) in Logic and Knowledge:
This whole subject [logic, logical syntax and semantics] has become so technical, and so capable of quasi-mathematical definiteness, that it can hardly be regarded as belonging to philosophy as formerly understood. True, it solves what were philosophical problems, but so did Newton in writing on what he still called 'natural philosophy'. But we do not now regard planetary theory as part of philosophy, and I think that on the same ground much of the recent work on logic, syntax, and semantics should be regarded as definite knowledge, not philosophical speculation.
It's nice that B. thinks so highly of logic and semantics - "definite knowledge" an' all - I just wish he thought better of philosophy...
Posted by logican at August 26, 2006 05:10 PM
Trackback Pings
The trackback address for this entry is:
http://www.logicandlanguage.net/trakbak.cgi/156
Comments
Well, that seems to be what has happening to philosophy all along. Bits and pieces of it -- sometimes big chunks -- break off and become part of science proper. I think it is good that this happens, it means that philosophers have succeeded in clarifying the basic conceptual issues to the point where they become amenable to scientific treatment. The challenge, of course, is for philosophers to find ever new areas in need of conceptual analysis, the price of success being that they are then lost to philosophial speculation.
Posted by: Aldo Antonelli at September 16, 2006 08:55 PM
Does B Russell regard "definite knowledge" as having more value or legitimacy than "philosophical speculation"? I am not sure I necessarily construe the latter term to be patronising, let alone perjorative.
Posted by: devilnomore at September 19, 2006 02:38 PM
Hmmm... Well, I never thought I'd say this, but I appreciate B's candor! I'm not sure, however, that it's a slight against philosophy. There is, after all, no clear account today of just what philosophy is - though many (myself included) are all too willing to provide such definition (not only of what it is, but also what it should be, especially in light of what it was). But as far as the B quote goes, he does say "philosophy as formerly understood". This seems right, does it not?
Posted by: al at September 20, 2006 05:03 PM
Hmm! Until your comment at the end, I wasn't taking what B.R.'s said as a slight against philosophy. I read this more as "yet another success story" under philosophy's belt.
Posted by: Momish at October 11, 2006 06:58 PM
It's great when folks start saying things like that Russell quote, right up until the point where anomalies in evidence show up. Then it's all right back to the drawing board with natural philosophy.
The whole attitude is a shame. If philosophy were given its proper place, the devastation that results from paradigm shifts in science would never be quite so surprising, nor so extreme. For philosophers tend to be uniquely sensitive to the feeling that the carpet is about the be pulled out from under them, since they (supposedly) have to overcome skepticism. Their collective bag of tricks will sometimes come in handy.
Posted by: Benjamin Nelson at October 27, 2006 08:19 PM