--- In Wittgentein-Language_Mathematics_and_Science@yahoogroups.com,
"robparrl2" <robparrl@k...> wrote:

> The working scientist and mathematician have tried to keep

philosophy and religion] out of their work since the Enlightenment.

[JWS] There have been forms of human thought and behavior practiced
under the banner of "philosophy" that are hard to fit into the world
view of modern science. There are religiously-motivated attitudes that
come into conflict with science. Upon making such observations about
the conflicts between science, philosophy and religion it is tempting
for working scientists to try to distance themselves from these
distracting conflicts.

However, an alternative is to seek consilience between disciplines in
the sense outlined in E. O. Wilson's book, Consilience. At the very
least, scientists can try to understand religion, philosophers can try
to understand science and religiously motivated individuals can try to
have a realistic understanding of the relationship between religion
and science. These kinds of understandings between different types of
people as being fundamentally dependent on how we use language.

Can we unify the conflicting views of reality that arise from a group
of blind men who are each holding onto one part of an elephant? I
think the differing views can be unified if all the blind men keep
talking and share their experiences. We are all able to recognize the
limitations of our personal perspective and work with others so as to
try to attain an objective and unified view of reality.

> philosophic bias may reside in any
> particular science

[JWS] I would just make the flat statement, "philosophical bias
resides in any science."

We strive for greater objectivity. This is where intelligent and
informed outsiders can be useful. Philosophers and sociologists can
observe the sciences and point out the existing biases. Philosophers
can perform thought experiments that might knock scientists out of
their useless ruts.

>I have come to think of Wittgenstein more as an un-philosopher, a
> thinker, rather than a philosopher as ordinarily understood.

[JWS] I guess some people either go through life never making a
serious error (unlikely) or they learn to live with habits that make
errors comfortable. I think Wittgenstein tried to practice an
intellectual honesty that did not allow him to pretend that any idea
is OKAY when he could sense that the idea had defects or retained the
slightest hint of error. Most of us are in too much of a hurry to
allow ourselves to pass up ideas that are good enough for practical
use. We adopt half-baked ideas and get on with life as best we can.
This is pragmatic, but eventually it leads us as individuals and as
whole societies to run up against our limitations. Eventually our
socially constructed fantasies collapse. We could use many more
Wittgenstein's who have the courage to point out the fantasies before
they reach critical mass. And we need ways of forcing more people to
listen to these warnings.

> He had his work and science had
> its own work, They were not to be confused.

[JWS] I have no objection to philosophers or thinkers or anyone trying
to do useful work outside of the confines of conventional science.
However, in my view, anything that is a useful human activity can be
accommodated with science. Science is not monolithic, but science
grows so as to absorb any useful approach to learning about the world.
The process by which new ways of learning about the world are created
is a process that everyone can participate in. I find Wittgenstein to
be interesting because he was going after problems that had not yet
been fit into science. All of existing science could not deal with the
problems that Wittgenstein was working on. In many cases, I think
science is now catching up and it is useful for scientists who are
interested in language, the brain and psychology to look back at what
Wittgenstein was able to accomplish from outside of science before
neurobiology began to mature.

-John Schmidt