> But during the renaissance, critical thinking, creativity, and logic separated and became science.
But modern logic was developed by philosophers in the late 19th and early 20th century. Frege, Tarski and Russell weren't scientists. And it's surely absurd to suggest that there isn't any critical thinking or creativity in the entire philosophical literature since Descartes.
> There is no progress in philosophy,
That's clearly false in some areas. To stick with the same example, our understanding of paradoxes has been greatly increased by the development of modern mathematical logic, which is largely the work of philosophers. To take another, we now have a much better understanding of the possible ways in which the mind might relate to the brain, thanks to the development of behaviorism, functionalism, etc. in the mid 20th century.
In some areas, such as moral philosophy, it's true that there has been no progress if you define progress as consensus. But so what? Would you rather no-one ever thought seriously about moral questions? Just because it is difficult to reach a consensus on some topic doesn't mean that there's no value in thinking hard about it.
I apologize for not responding sooner. This is after all a discussion, and not a forum for simply venting.
As for logicians as philosophers, perhaps I am in the minority when I disassociate them soley based on their results. Maybe that is perhaps defining the problem set based on the solution. But in general logicians follow the rigor of mathematics, and as a result their accomplishments are timeless. But when they are older often simply abandon the rigor for treatises on the "meaning" of the Incompleteness theorem or the futility of logic.
As a young man, Russell classified himself as a mathematician. And to paraphrase hi, he became a philosopher when he slowed down, and then a politician when we slowed down even more.
Perhaps the split on mind/brain understanding is again the birth of the science of psychology. Kuhn's work is obviously sociological in nature, yet it is untested. In the regard, perhaps philosophy has a place as a proto-science. It is were ideas gestate before rigor.
But you ask, "So what?" My answer is that these discussions and time spent are not much more than entertainment for those engaged; but they are portrayed as the most noble art and purest pursuit of man. The general populace scoffs when an actor demands respect for ill-conceived political views or an artist is uncovered as a faux-intellectual. In my opinion it is the same when the the twenty year old with tweed jacket and goatee settles down with Nietzsche in the university commons. That's a past time activity; which is fine. We all enjoy a football game, a movie, or a stimulating books. But when we partake of them we know what we are doing. We aren't lying ourselves and others that we are going to make the world a better place by watching the telly tonight.
> Maybe that is perhaps defining the problem set based on the solution.
Yes, it is. You're just defining anything that makes progress as science or mathematics rather than philosophy, so your claim is a tautology.
I can't really make any sense of your last paragraph. I'm sure some philosophers are assholes, but that doesn't mean that philosophy isn't worth doing.
Yes, it would be a tautology if I had defined it in terms of progress. But progress is the result of the methods and intention of the endeavors of science; falsifiability being one of them. Another is applicability, which often comes in the form of being subject to experimentation.
Logic is a great tradition of in both science and philosophy; and even now there is a working community with practitioners of the field with both titles. But when I was entered graduate school I left for the mathematics department specifically because formal logic was relegated to the unfashionable corner of most philosophy programs.
>Yes, it would be a tautology if I had defined it in terms of progress.
And you did -- how else could you exclude developments in logic from the history of philosophy?
> But progress is the result of the methods and intention of the endeavors of science; falsifiability being one of them.
No-one has really thought that falsifiability is a contentful constraint on scientific theory formation for some time now (even Karl Popper basically abandoned the view in all but name).
"No-one has really thought that falsifiability is a contentful constraint on scientific theory formation for some time now"
This quote is a textbook case of someone parroting the fashions of philosophy to make noise instead of a point. To wit: it talks about undefined general opinion, it has dropped a "name" in lieu of evidence, and by focusing upon a vague "formation" of ideas instead of the "methods and intention" as quoted above, it could be interpreted as being being confined to a narrower scope than the original statement and thereby attempts avoid the statement it is attempting to supersede.
Most importantly, it digresses from what goes on in reality without bothering to consult it. Within the scope of the original statement, which is talking about the scientific method, the community is actively engaged in this discussion:
http://www.google.com/search?q=is+string+theory+falsifiable
In more formal contexts that's called a "reference" or "citation". Here, if you can't be bothered to google for this stuff: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
> To wit: it talks about undefined general opinion,
In what sense is it undefined? I'm talking about the general opinion in the philosophy of science. You can check that statement out by reading the relevant literature, if you don't believe me.
>Most importantly, it digresses from what goes on in reality without bothering to consult it. Within the scope of the original statement, which is talking about the scientific method, the community is actively engaged in this discussion: http://www.google.com/search?q=is+string+theory+falsifiable
If you actually read the paper in the first result of that search, it gives a reasonably good explanation of why falsifiability is a very fuzzy and indeterminate requirement. But if you really want to demonstrate that mainstream physics is seriously worrying about questions of falsifiability, you need to give links to journal articles.
But modern logic was developed by philosophers in the late 19th and early 20th century. Frege, Tarski and Russell weren't scientists. And it's surely absurd to suggest that there isn't any critical thinking or creativity in the entire philosophical literature since Descartes.
> There is no progress in philosophy,
That's clearly false in some areas. To stick with the same example, our understanding of paradoxes has been greatly increased by the development of modern mathematical logic, which is largely the work of philosophers. To take another, we now have a much better understanding of the possible ways in which the mind might relate to the brain, thanks to the development of behaviorism, functionalism, etc. in the mid 20th century.
In some areas, such as moral philosophy, it's true that there has been no progress if you define progress as consensus. But so what? Would you rather no-one ever thought seriously about moral questions? Just because it is difficult to reach a consensus on some topic doesn't mean that there's no value in thinking hard about it.