I was wondering if any academic philosophers visit this forum — Shawn

@Pfhorrest is an academic philosopher. He writes interesting articles in his main page: The Codex Quaerentis.
I remember that a few years ago he posted some consistent and philosophical threads but I think he is off from TPF or he is just taking a break.

In the other hand, Guest Speakers was a good idea to ask academic philosophers to join TPF and answers some questions.

I didn't end up staying in academia, but technically I am one. Afraid I can't answer most of your questions, with perhaps the exception of some aspects of philosophy of science.

I didn't end up staying in academia, but technically I am one. — Manuel

Right! Sorry for forgetting you... If I am not wrong you hold a PhD on philosophy at Comillas right? Well, I remember it because I attended to Nebrija which is in front of your university. :sweat:

Yes, I remember seeing Nebrija. :cheer:

No worries, it's actually not important.

If having a PhD in philosophy and teaching philosophy courses counts as an academic philosopher then I am or was an academic philosopher before I retired. But the logic and philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science is not my area of interest.

I am somewhat saddened that the logic and philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science categories never receive much attention or forum posts — Shawn

I, on the other hand, am not surprised at all. I never attended to so many talks and in such frequency about science in any philosophical forum or community that I have participated in other than here. In fact, when I joined TPF, since 1.5 years ago, I was surprised to see that TPF allowed topics in which the subject was purely scientific, instead of removing them. Now, I got used to it of course!

Sure, I think I was wrong regarding threads that are about physics even though very little of them are actually scientific or conducted according to what academia might require.

But the logic and philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science is not my area of interest. — Fooloso4

I can understand this well. What I cannot undestand is how can science --and more specifically, talking about purely scientific subjects-- be so à la mode in here!

What I cannot undestand is how can science --and more specifically, talking about purely scientific subjects-- be so à la mode in here! — Alkis Piskas

Science is by its nature conventional, so its concepts
are more accessible to the average person than are philosophical ideas. As a result, people are forced to use their knowledge of science to extrapolate abstract philosophical notions. For instance, they may know what physicists have to say about time and space, but have no idea what philosophers have written on the subject and how it may differ from the scientists.

Science is by its nature conventional, so its concepts are more accessible to the average person than are philosophical ideas. As a result, people are forced to use their knowledge of science to extrapolate abstract philosophical notions — Joshs

Good point! :up: This explains a lot.

Pfhorrest is an academic philosopher. He writes interesting articles in his main page: The Codex Quaerentis. — javi2541997

I dunno that I'd really call myself "an academic philosopher", as that sounds like I have a PhD and publish papers in journals and stuff. I just have a BA in the subject. But I appreciate that someone here remembers me fondly!

I remember that a few years ago he posted some consistent and philosophical threads but I think he is off from TPF or he is just taking a break.

I found a philosophy chat server on Discord that I enjoyed more than here, where I was quickly thrust up the ranks of staff and now basically run the place. It's probably against the rules to link to it here...

(We do have quite a number of actual academic philosophers of higher educational attainment than myself, PhDs and Masters and so on, and many graduate students working toward those goals).

Hrrmm... isn't it also the case, though, that there's been a lot of crossover between these two disciplines?

I always find the two disciplines fascinating in blend -- in fact that's what I was thinking with respect to philosophy of science as to why it gets less attention: you need to know not just one discipline, but two -- and, in practice, a lot of philosophy of science relies upon a philosophy of history, so you get to have that thrown into the mix as well.

So it's just a larger barrier to entry than a lot of the other sub-fields of philosophy the standard topics one encounters that turns one onto philosophy. Not that there aren't people who really can pick up on all of these things at once, just that it's less likely to find a person who does simply by the number of things you need to feel confident about to do it.

You may be interested to note that Philip Goff registered and entered one post in response to my criticism of one of his articles about six years back.

I am somewhat saddened that the logic and philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science categories never receive much attention or forum posts. — Shawn

The philosophy of mathematics is largely foundation theory, and this is a very technical subject. I was a math prof but beyond naive set theory I know little of foundations. In the past the forum had several participants who seemed quite knowledgeable in the subject, but, apart from Tones in a Deep Freeze they don't seem to be active. Beyond foundations I suppose one looks into the historical origins of the subject, arguing what Aristotle really meant by something attributed to him, etc. Not much there in my opinion.

As for science, threads on quantum theory spur a number of posts, many of which appear authoritative, but I have my suspicions. We have had a few actual physicists active here, but they seem to have at least momentarily fled the environment. It's an arena of discussion that beckons those who enjoy batting around the quaisi-woo some actual luminaries lay out - seriously or frivolously.

We have had a few actual physicists active here, but they seem to have at least momentarily fled the environment. — jgill

I've posted maybe a dozen times on Physics Forum, which is a fantastically well-run and professional forum, but they give very short shrift to anything deemed 'too philosophical' which covers a very wide range of topics. I posted a question about philosophy of maths and the ontological status of number, which was frozen because, the moderator said, there was no-one there qualified to address it.

My impression is, the philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics are not well understood as a philosophy discipline and as a subject matter for philosophy forums. I mean, I think a lot of members don't quite know how to approach talking about science or mathematics philosophically, though they may have studied science and math as a practice and as academic courses, and are very good at them. But science and math have a different emphasis when it comes to philosophical discourse.

I posted a question about philosophy of maths and the ontological status of number, which was frozen because, the moderator said, there was no-one there qualified to address it — Wayfarer

I wonder what would happen if this were posted on a math forum. Probably the same result. There do seem to be ontological questions arising about sets, and numbers can be interpreted as sets.

I wonder what you would make of this blog entry by Colin McGinn. It's quite short. Does he have a point, or is it not even wrong?

https://www.colinmcginn.net/what-is-mathematics-about/

I wonder what would happen if this were posted on a math forum. — jgill

I would never visit a math forum. My school maths was terrible. My interest in the philosophy of math came later in life. I have enough interest in and knowledge of physics to visit physics forum very occasionally.

I think it's muddled. But then I was never impressed by 'mysterianism' either.

Thus we have agnostic realism about the mathematical world: numbers are real but we must be agnostic about the intrinsic character of numbers—as we must be agnostic about the true nature of what we call “matter”.

Well, I would say the "intrinsic character of numbers" is irrelevant to the subject, and an unfruitful environment for agnosticism. Can philosophy bring any clarity to something that exists only within its practice?

Fair enough.

It's kind of the only label I identify with comfortably, but I do recognize that McGinn is not for everybody - he can be too opinionated and this can sometimes say things which are doubtful. But being a Mysterian myself, I can't help but like him.



I can certainly understand that, if there is such an "intrinsic character", but it plays no role in the development of the field, then this is not something of concern for a Mathematician. This applies to physics too, I think.

If you have in mind ethics, political philosophy and the like, there is a lot of interesting material. But as to the sciences and math, there is no neat distinction between philosophy of any field in science and the science itself. We call it philosophical when the question sounds deep.

Other problems: the self, free will, monism, knowledge and the like, don't look promising, because we've been debating them for thousands of years. Branches of science developed out of philosophy, but a set of important questions (to a good deal of the founder of these fields) have been left behind.

Could be a clue of questions which we don't have the intellectual capacity to solve.

Can philosophy bring any clarity to something that exists only within its practice? — jgill

Have you ever happened across Wigner's essay The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences? It's atrocious prose, but I found the gist of it compelling when first introduced to it via the previous Forum.

Also Mario Livio Why Maths Works, and Jim Franklin The Mathematical World. (The latter explicitly addresses the question of what maths is about.)

...being a Mysterian myself, I can't help but like him.... — Manuel

"although I can't say exactly why" :lol:

Coming to think of it, here's a legitimate question within your area of expertise: there is a 'domain of natural numbers', is there not?

And there are numbers outside that domain, like the imaginary number $\sqrt -1$ which is used in renormalisation procedures in physics.

To collect samples, perhaps.

I'm sure a logician might wanna include some of what we say in here in their book as exercises (find the fallacy).

The philosophy of mathematics is largely foundation theory, and this is a very technical subject. I was a math prof but beyond naive set theory I know little of foundations. In the past the forum had several participants who seemed quite knowledgeable in the subject, but, apart from Tones in a Deep Freeze they don't seem to be active. Beyond foundations I suppose one looks into the historical origins of the subject, arguing what Aristotle really meant by something attributed to him, etc. Not much there in my opinion. — jgill

I wrote a paper (published in the Journal of the British Society of Phenomenology) titled What is a Number: Rethinking Derrida’s Concept of Infinity. It deals with Derrida’s deconstruction of mathematical idealization as it is found in Husserl’s and Kant’s works. This is certainly technical in the sense that it relies on a thorough familiarity with writers like Derrida and Husserl.

. Can philosophy bring any clarity to something that exists only within its practice? — jgill

I’m trying to think of an example of something that exists only within philosophy’s practice (or doesn’t exist only within its practice). Put differently, isnt the aim of philosophy to address within its practice such inclusive concepts as world, existence , reality and truth?

I’m trying to think of an example of something that exists only within philosophy’s practice (or doesn’t exist only within its practice). Put differently, isnt the aim of philosophy to address within its practice such inclusive concepts as world, existence , reality and truth? — Joshs

A lot of academic philosophy is focused more on itself than on concepts of "world, existence, reality and truth." Much of what is taught and published is exclusively devoted to the study of philosophers and their texts; in essence, it is philology of philosophy. History and sociology of philosophy are often also included into the same discipline.

A lot of academic philosophy is focused more on itself than on concepts of "world, existence, reality and truth." Much of what is taught and published is exclusively devoted to the study of philosophers and their texts — SophistiCat

It is for some the former via the latter.

Put differently, isnt the aim of philosophy to address within its practice such inclusive concepts as world, existence , reality and truth? — Joshs

Of course.

I’m trying to think of an example of something that exists only within philosophy’s practice (or doesn’t exist only within its practice). Put differently, isnt the aim of philosophy to address within its practice such inclusive concepts as world, existence , reality and truth? — Joshs

Entities in thought experiments? Swamp man, twin earth, brains in vats, grue and bleen, the utility monster, Gigantor...

A lot of academic philosophy is focused more on itself than on concepts of "world, existence, reality and truth." Much of what is taught and published is exclusively devoted to the study of philosophers and their texts; in essence, it is philology of philosophy. History and sociology of philosophy are often also included into the same discipline. — SophistiCat

Why is much philosophical focus devoted to the study of philosophers and their texts? Perhaps in order to use the work of others to articulate fresh concepts of world, existence, reality and truth. One could make the same argument for the purpose of historical analyses of philosophy.