5 ms·

I don’t see any direct origins. Karl Popper was a small child when Einstein came up with relativity. Hobbes was just a reactionary apologist of absolute monarch

I don’t see any direct origins. Karl Popper was a small child when Einstein came up with relativity. Hobbes was just a reactionary apologist of absolute monarchy. And Frege’s philosophical contributions were world-changing as long as we can pretend that propositional calculus is philosophy.

woodruffw 4y ago
I don’t think this is going to be productive, but to be clear: the claim isn’t that science didn’t exist before Popper, or that Popper somehow gets credit for all of science. It’s that Popper has produced the best description of science’s epistemic underpinnings thus far, allowing science to progress without imploding under the demands of positivism. In other words: when we “do” science, the epistemic model we use is less than a century old. The claim that propositional calculus is in the domain of philosophy and mathematics is not controversial in either domain. Nor is it unusual: the history of philosophy is the history of discharging subjects once they develop a field of their own.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  > It’s that Popper has produced the best description of science’s epistemic underpinnings thus far, allowing science to progress without imploding under the demands of positivism I am not sure what that claim means precisely. Popper saved science from… a certain group of philosophers? > when we “do” science, the epistemic model we use is less than a century old The epistemic model is whatever the scientist in question uses. One can be a Popperian, another can claim they are guided by God, and someone else would just say “shut up and calculate.” Popper didn’t like Bohr and his Copenhagen interpretation from the philosophical standpoint yet he didn’t deny that Bohr was a good physicist. > The claim that propositional calculus is in the domain of philosophy and mathematics is not controversial in either domain. Nor is it unusual: the history of philosophy is the history of discharging subjects once they develop a field of their own. The context of this discussion is that philosophy progresses over time. You cannot say that it progresses just because we put a label “philosophy” on every new thing that isn’t formalized yet. In that trivial sense, of course, philosophy had great progress; especially in its subfield of natural philosophy also known nowadays as science. But did Frege really stand on the shoulders of Hegel, Spinoza and Kant and improved on their ideas?
- FabHK 4y ago
  > Popper has produced the best description of science’s epistemic underpinnings thus far Ok, sure. > allowing science to progress without imploding under the demands of positivism How is giving a description of something necessary for its continued progress? Were people not having sex before evolutionary psychologists and biologists elucidated how and why?
Tainnor 4y ago
You might be interested in the fact that Einstein himself claimed that he might not have stumbled upon relativity if it hadn't been for David Hume: https://aeon.co/essays/what-albert-einstein-owes-to-david-humes-notion-of-time https://aeon.co/essays/what-albert-einstein-owes-to-david-hu...

woodruffw 4y ago

I don’t think this is going to be productive, but to be clear: the claim isn’t that science didn’t exist before Popper, or that Popper somehow gets credit for all of science. It’s that Popper has produced the best description of science’s epistemic underpinnings thus far, allowing science to progress without imploding under the demands of positivism. In other words: when we “do” science, the epistemic model we use is less than a century old. The claim that propositional calculus is in the domain of philosophy and mathematics is not controversial in either domain. Nor is it unusual: the history of philosophy is the history of discharging subjects once they develop a field of their own.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago
> It’s that Popper has produced the best description of science’s epistemic underpinnings thus far, allowing science to progress without imploding under the demands of positivism I am not sure what that claim means precisely. Popper saved science from… a certain group of philosophers? > when we “do” science, the epistemic model we use is less than a century old The epistemic model is whatever the scientist in question uses. One can be a Popperian, another can claim they are guided by God, and someone else would just say “shut up and calculate.” Popper didn’t like Bohr and his Copenhagen interpretation from the philosophical standpoint yet he didn’t deny that Bohr was a good physicist. > The claim that propositional calculus is in the domain of philosophy and mathematics is not controversial in either domain. Nor is it unusual: the history of philosophy is the history of discharging subjects once they develop a field of their own. The context of this discussion is that philosophy progresses over time. You cannot say that it progresses just because we put a label “philosophy” on every new thing that isn’t formalized yet. In that trivial sense, of course, philosophy had great progress; especially in its subfield of natural philosophy also known nowadays as science. But did Frege really stand on the shoulders of Hegel, Spinoza and Kant and improved on their ideas?
FabHK 4y ago
> Popper has produced the best description of science’s epistemic underpinnings thus far Ok, sure. > allowing science to progress without imploding under the demands of positivism How is giving a description of something necessary for its continued progress? Were people not having sex before evolutionary psychologists and biologists elucidated how and why?

Tainnor 4y ago

You might be interested in the fact that Einstein himself claimed that he might not have stumbled upon relativity if it hadn't been for David Hume: https://aeon.co/essays/what-albert-einstein-owes-to-david-humes-notion-of-time https://aeon.co/essays/what-albert-einstein-owes-to-david-hu...