/lit/ - Literature

>>19727253
>Has this been "solved"; do people (well, do scientists) even care about this problem at all, or are we just assuming nature is pretty much unifor...
They couldn't care less.

I cannot bring myself to take philosophy of science seriously since everything I read about it seems so incredibly disconnected to the real world of science, and is never grounded in actual scientific practice.

>>19727608
>isn't the whole enterprise of philosophy of science meant to question of the grounding of physics though?

>>19727608
The philosophical framework for "the method" of western science began with the early Ionians, were refreshed by Plato and Aristotle, and culminated with Descartes. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors (like british empiricism). And of course the hylic scientific materialists of today are irrelevant.

>>/lit/thread/S19431541

Burtt, Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science

Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science by Ian Hacking

You're ready for against method, but, if you're really concerned, read the structure of scientific revolutions first. After kuhn and feyerabend you might want to try lakatos, but if you love kuhn then read conceptual revolutions by thagard, and the order of things by foucault.

>>19727253
I have worked with scientists in the past, and so can tell you that they, en masse, care as little about metaphysical issues as birds and beasts. They are almost all firmly in the ‘naive realist’ category.

>>19727253
>what are the big problems in phil science?
antivaxxers and misinformation

>>19727608
What is current scientific practice?

>>19728733

>>19727253
No scientist cares even the slightest about the philosophy of science, nor will reading about it help you understand science even the slightest.

Read Ulrika Segerstråle's "Defenders of the Truth" instead, it covers the sociobiology controversy and does a very good job at it

>>19727253
Andrés Gómez Emilsson is worth reading, especially if you're interested in the philosophy and science of consciousness. He talks about things like Open Individualism, DMT, the technological singularity, and the far future.

https://qualiacomputing.com/
https://www.youtube.com/c/Andr%C3%A9sG%C3%B3mezEmilsson/videos

>>19727253
Yudkowsky's Sequences are worth reading. Yudkowsky talks a lot about epistemology, Bayesianism, and AI safety.

https://www.readthesequences.com/
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/highly-advanced-epistemology-101-for-beginners

>>19727253
This entire channel is full of redpills on the philosophy of science. The guy who created it was a schizo who posted on /sci/, went insane, and killed himself.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeLURmm1ICIg46GkQpWOhIw/videos
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/

>>19729245
>>19729261
>>19729272
these are not what I am looking for. I am interested in academic philosophers talking about the philosophy of science, not the Roko's Basilisk guy

>>19728739
what i meant is that I expect a demonstration of why philosophy of science matter for science, or failing that at least a demonstration of the various principles of philosophy of science with concrete examples. I have never heard of either so far.

>>19729245
>>19729261
>>19729272
fuck off back to /x/

Interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only subject where there is any meaningful collaboration between scientists and philosophers.
Unless you consider psychologists to be scientists then their interaction with philosophers is significant as well.

>>19727253
The Greatest PhiSci book after the science war.
Disprove me. I mean seriously. I want to know another one

>>19727608
You phrased that wrong; but the object and argumentation are correct because you didn't deviate beyond measure from the reference to the object and its truth content with your rough semantics.

>>19729272
is this you before transition?

>>19730584
sounds like continental nonsense.

>>19730612

He performed the ultimate transition.

>>19729245
Who the fuck makes posts like this.

>>19730584
correct opinion

Have you read vol II? I haven't gotten around to it yet