> Brian Manning Delaney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> "J. R. Molloy"
>> If not, I suggest you stop making
>> this claim [that science is a subset of
>I have grounds: philosophy is about truth (some would put even more
>broadly), by definition. Sci. is about only _empirical_ truth (by definition,
>yours in fact).
If philosophy defines the terms used in science what, then, is the means by which these philosophical arguments are made? It seems that all philosophical questions ultimately become translated into scientific ones. This is readily apparent if one looks at the philosophy of mind literature today. But what is the argument that this is not happening or will not happen to that more general truth-searching or -defining sector of philosophy? That, too, is translatable into empirical terms. If you want to know the conditions of truth you have to know what the knower of truth knows. So you have to know the construction of the knower. For philosophy to judge the foundations of logic it must use some formal system. Which logic does it use?