/lit/ - Literature

>>22166933
sounds really fucking boring anon

>>22166933
Have you read Hacking?

>>22166933
Never understood why Schopenhaeur is associated with the Scientific Method in this meme. Wouldn't someone like Bacon make more sense?

>>22167370
read World As Will

>>22167418
It is a meme intended for popular consumption, whatever Schopenhaur wrotes does nothing to alter the fact that he's not the best choice for a meme about the scientific method.

>>22167370
I don't think it's meant to represent Schopenhaeur, illiterates will think it's a generic intellectual

>>22167465
and this meme was made by illiterates?

>>22167840
Where do you think we are?

>>22167370
this. though I think it should be Hume desu.
>>22167418
Its not that he’s against it, just that hes not exactly a formative or overly involved figure in it particularly.

A Nice Derangement of Epistemes, Zammito

>>22167892
>>22167418
people who think they got a HOPOS education from a bachelors in philosophy roll call

>>22166933
Check out Mario Bunge. I was flipping through one of his books I picked up, Philosophy of Science Vol One, and it seems to be in line with what you're looking for--it's his own system and it didn't look like he surveyed other work but it's worth looking into. Also check out Nancy Cartwright.

>>22169504
>non-technical book on philosophy of science
Sorry, both of those books are technical. You're not going to get anything about methodology that isn't technical unless you just read popsci bullshit.

>>22166933
The depicted "science worshippers" model is really just the model compulsory education drills into students. It's likely a side effect of education being populated almost entirely by non-scientist, non-mathematicians, since pay can't possibly compete with industry, sub-collegiate academia gets no research resources, and men are unlikely to be attracted to the field because it's a "woman's field" and they're all assumed to be pederasts anyway.
The insidious essay insists that students find sources that support their position and one or two strawmen to refute, and be as careless as possible in finding them because they need a minimum number of cited sources and the teacher absolutely doesn't have time or interest to verify whether they are of any quality.
Not that the average educated person of any previous generation was actually better at critical thinking, just that we've deliberately trained the past several wrong.

>>22166933

>>22170189
>woman's field
this was most strongly peddled in the mid-60s-70s and destroyed education across the globe

>>22166933
I'll be the one to break it for you, anon: philosophy of science cannot be explained non-technically. And if you manage to find a (technical) book that analyses the different propositions and how they relate to one another, it's probably going to have been written by a nobody who didn't actually contribute himself to the mighty task. You're better off throwing it away and reading the original philosophers. It's not a matter of detail: it will be more accurate to what they actually thought, it'll be much more clearly exposed, and you'll go much further into the rabbit hole.

>>22167309
Sorry about that
Take booba instead

>>22170587
The demonization of men as teachers goes back to the 1800s in the US. Feminists saw teaching as a step toward more bourgeois work. They thought that women would be seen as natural teachers given their role in the home, and once society became accustomed to their presence in one workplace, other opportunities would present themselves. In turn, these feminists were supported by industrialists who ran what we'd call charter schools today (they were educating their own workforce). They wanted to drive down the cost of labor, and feminists were presenting the educational field as "missional" and female teachers as "missionaries" - again, the understanding was that they were getting their foot in the door.
Thank you, capitalism and feminism. Thanks so much.

Poincaré - Science and Method

I was working this as a research question myself. One day, I'd like to publish my research somewhere amateur, but I'll give a quick and dirty glance.

My conclusion is that, what we call the scientific method, is an anachronism, and didn't exist until about 70 years ago, and began about 100 years ago with the introduction of probabilistic statistical modeling and the concept of a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis was introduced in about the year 1925. For reference, this was after the General Theory of Relativity.
You can just do a basic web search yourself and see what I'm talking about. Now, yeah, a lot of various writers and thinkers from the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and the 'Scientific Revolution' were using the word science or something similar (natural philosophy). They were using similar ideas. Great scientists of the last century seemed to be using the same idea of what we call science. But the word and concept has fundamentally changed in meaning. When translated, Kant describes metaphysics as a kind of 'science.' Theology was once considered a form of 'science.' Chemistry would be a different kind of 'science' to describe an aspect of the natural world of phenomena.
In reality, what most people now think of as 'science' is synonymous with an academic-corporate-state complex. Why? Because a necessary condition of science is a null hypothesis and peer review. If doesn't exist in reference to academic experts and state policy, it's not science. Why? Because 'peer review' requires the scientific-industrial complex. To publish requires relevant credentials. Peer review, in its form now, did not exist for most of history, and for most of the great scientific innovations. It existed in some different form (Galileo sending personal letters is a form of peer review). Yet, peer review doesn't actually give what it's ideally meant to: experimental replication. Hence, the 'replication crisis.' People associate this with the social science (in other words, the non-sciences), but it's actually prevalent in the physical sciences.
Incidentally, as even Michio Okaku once admitted, innovative scientists today don't actually use the scientific method. Even so, much in physical sciences now use probability-based computer models over observation.
This is the real reason I think social sciences are such a fraud. They were mostly invented in the last 100 years, after the widespread introduction of the scientific-industrial complex, the null hypothesis, and contemporary probability approaches. This whole method works exactly like astrology. Go out and actually study how astrology is done, and how this shit is done. You can find that sometimes, it actually 'works.'
This gets into some separate questions of things like surveys and samples sizes. Still, the very methods themselves are fraudulent and epistemologically false.