Re: Scientific Definitions

Kent <musquodster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

r norman wrote:

In the practice of science, as done by scientists writing papers and
using these words, there is even less agreement. In particular,
working scientists usually don't pay any attention to philosophers of
science and how they describe the foundations on which ideas can be
built. I am not saying that this as a good thing, simply it is how
the world works.


Most of the philosophy of science is ignored, probably correctly, by
scientists. Hume was ignored by scientists for 200 years (some
philosopoher took him seriously, Kant for example). Kuhn was taken
suffieintly seriously to be mentioned in the introductions of Ph.D
thesis but hardly beyond that. Popper on the other hand with the idea
all models are tentitive and the idea of falsification has had a large
effect on scientist's understanding of what they do. Unfortunately
philosophers have gone off the deep end again with the wide spread
claim that a scientific method does not exist. Except for Popper,
philosophers have not had much to say that has practical appilcation to
how science is actually done.

Well I think the philosophers who had the most impact on science were
the logicians of the 19thC. You might not know the name W. Stanley
Jevons, but his1873 The Principles of Science basically set the scene
(including in terms of hypotheses, models, theories and inductive method
and procedure). Or Mill had influence through his earlier System of
Logic.

And when scientists have used Popper, it has almost always been by
misreading or misinterpreting him to suit what they already thought,
from Medawar on.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwins Appendix
    ... theories are not really falsifiable as Popper proposes. ... Real science is not some logical ... My point is that Popparian falsifiability is wrong. ... usually too narrow and of interest to too small a group of scientists ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule is Xenos Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating r)
    ... The CAGING of the questions of science, it would seem to me, is AT LEAST as ... been caged so as to rule out preference. ... Neither is it to say that Popper did not ... themselves to be influenced much by scientists... ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Pol.Sci. vs. Poli.Sci
    ... Karl Popper, _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ ... Donald Gillies, _Philosophy of Science in the 20th Century_, vol IV ... the scientists and Creationists both get it all wrong. ... He and a bunch of other profeesional philosophers worked out ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: SR and GR without math
    ... Some philosophers such as Wittgenstein were also ... > scientists. ... And this counts in favour of Popper. ... > reading the writings of philosophers; it is by reading the writings of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pol.Sci. vs. Poli.Sci
    ... bare claim that Popper has been completely superseded isn't enough to advance the case; ... Philosophy of Science for Beginners: ... When the scientists to it, I want to cry, since they do have all the good arguments on their side. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
Loading