News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Philosophy of science books every computer scientist shou... by pron on Friday December 11, 2015 @02:13AM (#10715833)
> the biggest use for PhilSci is defending physics models we can't test, isn't it?

You are presuming a value function -- utility -- for the very subject that questions values, presumptions and what it even means to know. You have to take a step back :)

As logic is the foundation of mathematics even though very little mathematicians directly care about those foundations -- and you certainly don't need to fully understand them in order to understand almost all math -- so too is philosophy the foundation of knowledge and value. You don't need to understand it in order to do science, but it is a foundation nonetheless. It is best, therefore, not to ask questions like "what is it good for/how is it useful" before venturing into philosophy, because philosophy grapples precisely with questions like "is utility good?" and "what is good anyway?" You study philosophy because you wish to ponder the foundations to everything. Either those questions will resolve themselves for you or they won't...

Re:Philosophy of science books every computer scientist shou... by n0us on Friday December 11, 2015 @02:18AM (#10715843)
Mathematics cannot be reduced to logic, logic is not the foundation mathematics. An excellent summary can be found here.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

or just google Russell's paradox

Re:Philosophy of science books every computer scientist shou... by pron on Friday December 11, 2015 @02:21AM (#10715853)
I didn't mean that math can be fully reduced to logic, but that logic is the field of study concerned with the foundations of mathematics (although, perhaps not exclusively). Interesting link, though.

BTW, Russel's paradox has been resolved in pretty much all logic systems that are now used as the foundation of math.