News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically). Parent comment

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by mcphage on Thursday March 09, 2023 @03:12PM (#35086026)
> like laymen are trying to science without getting their hands dirty and while trying to sound fancy. I know that's the wrong take, but I can't get over it.

It's actually the reverse—multiple sciences started out as subfields of philosophy, that got useful enough on their own that they were peeled out into their own thing. It would be more useful to think of as philosophy as a soup of proto-sciences that are developing, that some might prove useful, and some might die out.

That's not really all philosophy is, but at least it's a more historically accurate way to look at it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by justinclift on Thursday March 09, 2023 @05:52PM (#35087974)
> that got useful enough

Does that mean "they figured out ways to make it reproducible and/or validate it"?

Whereas the other subfields of philosophy don't (yet) have ways to fully validate them, and/or make them reproducible?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by mcphage on Friday March 10, 2023 @08:13AM (#35093933)
> Whereas the other subfields of philosophy don't (yet) have ways to fully validate them, and/or make them reproducible?

I think it depends on the field. Reproducibility is more of a recent concern, whereas this process has been going on since the ancient Greeks, I'm sure.

Probably more recently the criterion is "commercial value".

[ Parent | on HN ]