[FOM] Progress in Philosophy

[Timothy Y. Chow]

"Studtmann, Paul" <pastudtmann at davidson.edu> wrote:
> When Godel compares philosophy to mathematics in Babylonian times, he 
> seems to be suggesting that philosophy is capable, though perhaps only 
> in the distant future, of some kind of systematic body of theory that is 
> as well-established as mathematics, or, if one is not quite so 
> optimistic, perhaps as well-established as some branches of empirical 
> science, for instance psychology.
[...]
>  let's hear the arguments.  Or, if one prefers, one can provide some 
>  methodology, (or indeed, I would be satisfied with a mere suggestion as 
>  to what such a methodology might look like) that would, if carried out 
>  properly, settle the debate.

There's a significant leap from "systematic body of theory" to "settling 
debate."  Due to the very nature of philosophical inquiry, it is hard to 
imagine that any debates in philosophy will be *settled*, other than by 
forcibly silencing dissidents.  Defining philosophical progress in terms 
of settling debates seems therefore to be seriously wrongheaded.  Even in 
mathematics, has the "debate" about whether, say, the circle can be 
squared been "settled" in the sense that no human being disagrees?  No.

Accumulating a "systematic body of theory" might be a more promising 
measure of progress.  So might Friedman's metric, which if I understand 
correctly amounts to counting how many other disciplines are spawned by 
philosophical thinking.  But settling debates?  I'm dubious.

Tim