3 ms·
That part about what claims sciences can make - has been addressed in statistical significance. No need to invoke philosophy. The dark truths are even darker t
by choonway 7y ago
That part about what claims sciences can make - has been addressed in statistical significance. No need to invoke philosophy.
The dark truths are even darker than that. It is what will get you deplatformed.
Paul has a very nice article on this somewhere on his blog. somewhere. lazy to link. something about things you can't say.
- claudiawerner 7y ago> That part about what claims sciences can make - has been addressed in statistical significance. No need to invoke philosophy. This is not what I meant, nor is it what the majority of philosophy of science concerns itself with. I specifically mentioned epistemological basis[4]. Questions such as what deliniates science from pseudoscience, and what empirical investigation tells us about how things really are, are questions in the domain of philosophy[0]. Even so, what rigorous justification deliniates a good statistical significance from a bad one? >The dark truths are even darker than that. It is what will get you deplatformed. Sure enough, philosophy studies those too[1][2][3]. >Paul has a very nice article on this somewhere on his blog. It's hard to see why PG should be considered an authority on philosophy. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/ [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/ [3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/ [4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#WhatKnow https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#WhatKnow