Talk:Introduction to Philosophy/Philosophy of Science
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] Occam's razor
This should get a mention, no? A problem with the rejection of the axiomic approach on the basis of the axioms being seemingly arbritrary is that it doesn't take into account that they are selected by being the simplest that offer the fullest explanation of observations. MrJones 09:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Falsificationismists?
"principle of falsificationism"? "principle of falsification", surely? MrJones 09:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Removed text
"Widely discredited is the thoery stating that there is no reason to think of science as a better source of knowledge about the universe compared with any other vision of the world. This has the disadvantage of putting theories such as Wiccanism, which although no doubt spiritually satisfying has little to offer on genetics."
Not that I'm an exceptionally big fan of Wiccanism (which, incidentally, isn't a theory but a religion), but it isn't supposed to offer any information on genetics, physics, neurobiology, or any other branch of natural science. It describes the universe in different terms, comes to different conclusions, etc. Anyhow, I don't know of anyone who has suggested that, say, a particular branch of science and a particular religion are on par with one-another in terms of their ability to describe the same sorts of things. What most philosophers who go on and on about how no one method is privileged over another are talking about is how, given systems of thought that describe different sorts of things, we can't say for sure which gives us knowledge of the universe *as it is*. What we can say for sure is how each helps and hinders us. Thus science, which is not spiritually satisfying, which gives us no answers about how we may have come to be, which makes no moral or ethical claims, is not necessarily priviliged over, say, Pentecostalism, which does cover all these topics. This has not been "widely discredited".
Also, "This has the disadvantage of putting theories such as Wiccanism, which although no doubt spiritually satisfying has little to offer on genetics." is not a sentence. I'd edit it, but I'm not quite sure what is being said.
"Other problems that continue to persist include fashions and politics that can both advance and detract from science, Lysenko and the theory (that environmental factors can affect genes) that replaced genetics for many years in the Soviet Union being the foremost of these."
Are these problems for science or problems for the philosophy of science?
- The above parts about Wiccanism, fasion, and politics were removed because they were unclear. liblamb 15:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Too much included under Karl Popper
Though many others are often mentioned in the same breath as Popper in discussion, is it a good idea to completely include all mention of them under the Popper section? Kuhn and the rest should receive their own section, as their thoughts aren't solely dependent on those of Popper. Smegs 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
