2 ms·

I read articles like this and once again realize that there are many trained scientists that have never read a bit of philosophy. The underlying theory of why t

by scoofy 5y ago

I read articles like this and once again realize that there are many trained scientists that have never read a bit of philosophy. The underlying theory of why the scientific method is so successful is there, and it's often ignored. There is a reason why we use the scientific method, and why we know that our knowledge is inherently limited, and presents itself as a dance between inductive model-building, and deductive model extrapolation. Science-as-truth should generally be always thought of as nonsense. Well done, falsifiable, repeatable, science-as-really-good-prediction is a much better model. It's important to remember that even in the standard model of physics, behemoth of human achievement, is both incomplete and limited in scope.

trutannus 5y ago
> there are many trained scientists that have never read a bit of philosophy Not only not read a bit of philosophy, but it's almost as common to find trained scientists who scoff at the field as a whole. Of the trained scientists I've met, only two didn't immediately respond with condescension when I brought up philosophy as a subject worth paying attention to. Several have actually tried to tell me that science and philosophy are "opposites", or went with the the tired line of "philosophy is just science that does not have any proof for it". That last one there fundamentally misunderstands the point of it all. An ignorance philosophy in general I think is a problem right now.