[MD] The Hero's journey

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
While it's true that any Ph.D. qualifies you as a philosopher in some broad sense, biotech and metaphysics are distinctly different disciplines. And of course this biotech background explains why I was unable to detect any signs of philosophical expertise.


Mark replied:
I am not quite sure what you mean by "broad sense".  If we are discussing metaphysics, it is the presentation of a Reality.  Biotech is a presentation of reality as much as any metaphysics is.  Why do you think it is called a doctorate of philosophy?  Do you think this is some kind of accidental classification? ...Can you categorically say that biotech and metaphysics are different?  If so, what premises do you draw on?  What exactly do you think science is?  Both metaphysics and biotech are disciplines within the framework of philosophy.  I live in the world of biotech, and I can categorically say that it is metaphysics.

dmb says:
My skepticism grows. Maybe the Doctorate has a different meaning in England. I seriously doubt it but it's possible. 
Anyone with a Ph.D. is considered to be a philosopher in the sense that they understand theoretical limits and epistemological standards of their own discipline. In your case, you would have had to grapple with the standards and methods of two distinctly different disciplines and found a way to reconcile the discrepancies by blending them somehow. In other words, the Doctorate makes you a philosopher about your own field so that you understand what the standards of truth are in your field, what counts as valid reasoning with respect to your particular subject matter. The psychologist has to handle data that's very different from the kind of data that physicists deal with. Since we can't rightly study poetry with the methods of chemistry, these methods are themselves subjects of inquiry. Somebody with a Doctorate is supposed to have thought very carefully about the methods and standards. Doctors are supposed to be very interested in the limits and validity of their own field. It's like a pre-requisite to ensure that one can properly add something to the body knowledge in that field. That's what the title is supposed to mean, I think. 



dmb said:
 ...one of the comments that made me question your philosophical expertise [was about] the battle between ontology and epistemology? That's what the MOQ delves into? I don't know what you mean by that.

Mark replied:
Because you do not understand my comments you question my philosophical expertise?  How does that work exactly?  If you do not understand a complex book do you question the author's expertise? 

dmb says:
Sometimes I fail to understand complex things. Sometimes I can't make sense of things because they're drivel. Naturally, I'd like to believe that I can tell the difference. Hasn't everyone encountered a nonsense-spewing bullshitter at one time or another? 



Mark, for example, said:
In terms of Epistemology and Ontology: Mathematical Truth.  semantics and epistemology  the battle between Epistemology and Ontology. dialectic. the dialectic between being and knowing.  The ontological  mode  "the view from nowhere" Thomas Nagel  "the world as I found it" Wittgenstein   Edmund Husserl  intuitive view of reality.  structural Western mentality.  The forking of human thought  bring Ontology and Epistemology back together.  destruction.  Construction  Any reply on this is more than welcome.

dmb says:
A tossed salad of jargon, vagueness and name-dropping. (Have you been taking philosophology lessons from Matt?) My skepticism grows further. (Ever see that old movie, "The Blob"?)