[FOM] methodological thesis
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Tue Apr 29 13:13:11 EDT 2008
I would like to discuss a methodological issue related to philosophy.
THESIS. Suppose that a philosophical paper P, in any part of
philosophy, consisting of informal prose, without new formalisms or
new theorems or new formal conjectures, represents intellectual
progress. Then there exists a paper Q with the following properties.
1. Q focuses on associated new formal definitions, new formalisms, new
formal conjectures, and new theorems.
2. Q has a relatively small amount of informal prose.
3. Q can be written using the current level of practice in formal
methods and foundational thinking.
4. P is fully subsumed by Q.
Note that this THESIS is subtly different from the stronger THESIS
that I am *NOT* putting forward: that formal methods are applicable to
every problem in philosophy.
Basically, I am saying that philosophical progress of any real kind is
always followed, or is realistically follow-able, by formal, or
formally systemized, progress.
Most philosophers believe (or would believe if they looked into it)
that what I do is not philosophy. On the contrary, what I do is
appropriately viewed as philosophy of type Q, that subsumes any type P
philosophy that does or could have preceded it.
In other words, I omit writing the P papers, keeping their essence in
my head, to be used to create Q papers. Only the Q papers are then
Proposed COUNTEREXAMPLES to this thesis would be greatly appreciated.
The challenge to me would be to subsume the proposed P paper into the
subsuming Q paper.
More information about the FOM