3 ms·
Back to harping on the superiority complex? > Now, if you're going to criticize work within the philosophy of science, it's impossible for me to respond unless
by stolio 12y ago
Back to harping on the superiority complex?
> Now, if you're going to criticize work within the philosophy of science, it's impossible for me to respond unless you point to something specific.
I did. The quality of the students the philosophy of science produces.
> Perhaps you can point me to an example of a philosopher of science who (a) dismisses all of physics and (b) has never studied any physics.
I'm not sure why you're making this request. I've never claimed there's even one philosopher of science who has "dismissed all of physics" nor have I claimed there's one who has never studied any physics.
> Most modern scientists routinely characterize the scientific method using philosophical ideas from the first half of the 20th century.
You do realize that nobody really talks or cares about the scientific method, right? It's something that kids are taught in junior high, it's there mostly to give the scientifically illiterate a ballpark idea of what's going on. Yes, people generally make fools of themselves when they talk about it because they're philosophizing. It's usually only philosophers who think a precise definition of it is at all important.
This brings us back to philosophers defining science in a way that the field of philosophy is important to it, but if a scientific idea depends upon a strict definition of "the scientific method" (or any other philosophical idea) it's probably a shitty scientific idea and it's probably wrong.
- foldr 12y ago>I did. The quality of the students the philosophy of science produces. I mean a specific reference to work in the philosophy of science. As far as I can tell you haven't read any, which is why I'm kind of baffled that you object to it so much. >I'm not sure why you're making this request. Because you are doing (a) and (b) with regard to the philosophy of science. I'm pointing out that you are being far more arrogant and dismissive with regard to the philosophy of science than any philosopher of science would be with regard to physics. >You do realize that nobody really talks or cares about the scientific method, right? That is largely the case within the philosophy of science, yes, since the demarcation problem is generally thought to be insoluble these days. But of course, given that science usually claims to have a special epistemological status, there is a genuine question as where this comes from. Working scientists' ideas about this tend to be very naive, and drawn largely from the philosophy of science of the first half of the 20th century.