From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Tue Feb 11 15:26:15 EST 1992
Article 3633 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3633 sci.philosophy.tech:2110
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <403@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 11 Feb 92 00:53:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: tdatirv.403
References: <1992Feb04.060419.21963@convex.com> <1992Feb05.011716.8427@norton.com>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 26

In article <1992Feb05.011716.8427@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
|
|Why should I care what 51% of philosophers think?  I disagree with 51% of
|philosophers on a great many issues.  Does that make me wrong about them
|simply because of the fact?  51% of philosophers once thought that there were 
|only four elements.  Is that a reason to believe them to be correct?

Great example!

Not only did more than 51% of philosphers believe there were only four
elements, but they seemed quite willing to go right on believing that.
[After all they had accepted it for thousands of years].

It took the experimental results of a group of 'natural philosophers', or
as we would call them today, scientists, to change that belief.  And even
then it took considerble evidence that was inconsistant with only four
elements before it was thoroughly rejected.

This is why I do not accept *anything* said by a philosopher that does not
have at least *some* observational basis.

I would pay more attention to one scientist than any number of philosophers.

-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


