Talk:Philosophical analysis/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Philosophical analysis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Content change
I recently made some fairly drastic changes to this article. I added information on conceptual analysis, since it's so prominent in the method of analytic philosophy. I also then changed the direction and content of the article a bit. I hope it doesn't step on anyone's feet. The article was quite neglected and off topic. Thus, I removed the section about arguments--it was okay, it just wasn't really about analysis in philosophy. "Analysis" is not really a blanket term for the techniques used in philosophy. Rather, it's a term for the technique most prominently used in (analytic) philosophy. --Jaymay 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Expansion
I added some stuff recently, but it could still use expanding--especially the part on the controversy. This is a big topic in philosophy, especially right now. There's a lot to say and that's been said about it. --Jaymay 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Progress of the controversy
Does this article reflect the current state of knowledge in philosophy?
In the decade or so since the last expansion by User:Jaymay, has anything significant changed in the landscape of critiques of the method of conceptual analysis? Are there new arguments or capitulations, or shifts in perspective or position by their proponents?
In particular, I'd like to know the answer to the following question: Has anybody critiqued conceptual analysis on the grounds that it's unscientific, i.e. fails to provide hypotheses grounded in clear operational definitions that are potentially falsifiable by repeatable and objective experiment? On the face of it, such a critique warrants an answer. This is the kind of thing that a scientist-philosopher, who would likely subscribe to physicalism, might ask.