4 ms·
>Philosophy is not just saying random stuff and "trust us". Ok, enlighten me. I've read philosophical works where that certainly seemed to be the case. There's
by oarabbus_ 8y ago
>Philosophy is not just saying random stuff and "trust us".
Ok, enlighten me. I've read philosophical works where that certainly seemed to be the case. There's also this weird thing where only a specific lineage of schools of thought and certain ancient Western philosophers are "real philosophy" and others (e.g. anyone with a non-Anglo last name) are "not real philosophers". No True Scotsman at its finest.
>And inversely, science is not just measuring -- that's the naive positivist (and later Popperian) view of what scientists do.
In graduate school, I worked at a lab in Stanford (I didn't attend there, but was fortunate to have spent some time there). Your statement would certainly be news to the PI I worked for, who was a heavy Popperian. You can't falsify the existence of sub-Planck lengths or times, that's for sure. Science was absolutely nothing more than that to him. And while you can certainly claim an Appeal to Authority fallacy, Stanford, at least, considered my PI competent enough to award him a PhD in a scientific discipline, so I'm not sure how much I can agree with your post.
- shstalwart 8y agoPeople like to say that "modern" science has moved past Popper. In my opinion, this is because it allows them to attach the gravitas of Science [0] to whatever their pet topic is, even when that topic does not admit falsification. This is not to suggest that we should not inquire on these topics, but rather that they should fall under some other umbrella besides Science. [0] Or whatever is left of it at this point.
- coldtea 8y agoIt's not that there aren't scientists that are Popperian. It's that science itself as a process is not Popperian (and of course modern epistemology has moved from the times of Popper).