Talk:Philosophy of nature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

new article, but lots of over-laps?[edit]

Should this be merged with Natural Philosophy? Or, perhaps to keep the distinction, this new article should be re-named Nature (Philosophy)?--Andrew Lancaster 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a re-delegation of content, or renaming of some kind. Previously content was removed by ScienceApologist and this article was made into a redirect. I think all this should be patiently clarified as to what these topics mean, or say, and should be delegated accordingly. Right now Natural Philosophy is approximately on the right track, meaning that it speaks to what is commonly understood as natural philosophy by persons knowledgeable in this area. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Macmillan,1967 8-vol. set & supp (1996) has a fairly good article on "Nature, Philosophical Ideas of", for example. So it's a valid topic in its own right as differentiated from "natural philosophy". I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting a new page titled Nature (philosophy) to here, or vice-versa. ... Kenosis 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how do it, but can you change this article to "Nature (Philosophy)"?--Andrew Lancaster 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, Andrew. Insofar as there can quite legitimately be separate topic forks on Nature, Philosophy of nature, Nature (philosophy) and Natural philosophy, this can readily be done for the present, making adaptations as the content develops. I want to make an NPOV cautionary note here, being familiar with the basic debate within philosophy and the history of it. Andrew, you have been taking a very stong POV slant on the topic which is an a priori bias. It will not stand up ultimately, unless balanced in the context of the debate between Plato and Aristotle, between the late neo-Platonic and Aristotlean a posteriori thinkers such as Ibn Rushd and Aquinas, between the continental rationalists and empiricists, and so forth. Please also recall that there are two additional cardinal rules on WP, which are WP:VER and WP:NOR. Many of the edits you've offered, some of which can still be readily seen in the content of Philosophy of nature, are musings and synthetic ideas that are unsourced and plainly are attempts to superimpose an idea of the a-priori forms on concepts for which those who developed the concepts had abandoned the Platonic ideas, such as in your repeated references to "forms" in direct relationship to "modern science". The solution to the a-priori/a-posteriori dilemma requires an understanding of obscure thinkers like Kant, deSaussure, Peirce and others to sort it out, and indeed this debate is still not settled today, But please don't impose this POV on the content of "nature"-related articles, because what you've been putting forth here just ain't so, and it is extremely apparent that you'll need to dig in with more research of your own and get a more well-developed handle on that ongoing debate through the many centuries and respect both "sides" of it. So I definitely would look forward to seeing your offerings to WP based on that anticipated growth of your own knowledge on the general subject area of history of philosophy. But, heck, I'm just one editor here-- just happen to be dwelling around these parts of WP presently. ... Kenosis 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Which part of the content do you propose to move over to Nature (philosophy)? ... Kenosis 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the entire content over to Nature (philosophy) and made this into a redirect for the present. ... Kenosis 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kenosis, I don't seem to be able to make any progress, and I fear that this is just a never ending circle, because what I have written seems to strike some dischord with you which I don't quite get. Your main example is that I used the word "form" in the context of modern science. I therefore added a quote to show that this comes straight out of Bacon, the man who argued the case for modern science. It is not my term. It is not POV or slanted. It is not controversial. It is not unsourced. What's more you clearly don't understand the point, because I have never claimed that Bacon's forms were the same as the Platonic forms. His thinking was clearly revolutionary. What you are effectively rejecting however (although you seem not to see it clearly) is that there is/was a link between the two: Bacon was REPLACING the forms. That is how he understood his reappraisal of Nature, and that is how early scientists understood him, and that is how his opponents understood him (and where they exist, still do). Tell me if this makes sense to you. This is very important for understanding the concept of Nature, because otherwise it is hard to see why the word has such a strange chaos of meanings in modern times. --Andrew Lancaster 14:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)