Exactly, when philosophy actually started solving a problem it became another discipline.

So what's left in philosophy is the stuff that no one has gotten very far in solving in 3K years. Why is life worth living? What is a good life? What is the best beer?

Philosophy & beer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg

Only in the same way that a patent troll invented using cookies to keep a shopping cart. Philosophy expounded enough ideas both good and terrible that they where the first ones to say X. However, plenty of scociety's who never heard of X did the same thing. If anything science is the antithesis of philosophy as it does not care about abstractions only observations.

Philosophy is the epitome of scientific navel-gazing. Don't get me wrong, gazing at one's navel is an important thing to do – sometimes – but this continual attempt to backwards-justify all sciences as flowing out of philosophy are overblown.

Astronomy and medicine are two very obvious examples. Primitive cultures didn't need philosophical underpinnings to notice and record the patterns in the sky or to figure out which plants helped with fevers or how to set broken bones. Philosophy might have helped science in places with structural issues, but it's reaching too far to say that nothing would be around without philosophy.

And calling philosophy navel-gazing is navel-gazing.

The philosophy of information is a great example of where it's incredibly important [1]. I seriously, seriously doubt that information theory would have come about without many of the philosophical underpinnings that came before it. It's not just about structure.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information/

edit: interestingly enough, some of the posts in your blog would be considered "philosophy". ;)

I would suggest you study more non western history. People did a lot of what we think of as science and math with very different underpinnings. Without a basis for comparison you can't separate what is actually important from an accident of history.

PS: The two most widely used and useful parts of math where completely unknown to the anchent Greeks. Aribic numerals are the first example of useful information theory after writing.

I understand what you mean, but calling it an accident of history is a pretty strong minimization of what amounts to applied philosophy towards genuine innovation.

When I talk about information theory, I'm talking more about the more generalized forms of it (Shannon, etc), not necessarily something that could generally be described as 'information' in a more classical definition. Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Commu....

(this is a subject I'm actively learning over time, so please correct me if I'm wrong!)

If you consider morse code was 100 years old at that point, there had already been a lot of very practical work under that heading. With earlier effort focused on designing and cracking encryption systems.

Shannon was more an outgrowth of having already abstracted information and looking for ways to encode that for transmission. I don't want to downplay the value, but in historical context it's very different from how you learn about such things after the fact.

Fair enough - I completely agree.

> And calling philosophy navel-gazing is navel-gazing.

It is, and as I said sometimes doing that is _good_ despite the derogatory connotations of calling it as such.

There's a point I'm trying to make which is not coming across, and I'm not sure I'll be able to.

Computer science is really just applied philosophy.

Most of Computer Science isn't science in the sense meant by describing physics as a science. Most of what is science in computing is simply applied physics and applied mathematics.

That doesn't make it any less worthy of study of course.