/lit/ - Literature

>>6364813
Feyerabend, Against Method.

Quine: two dogma's of empiricism

>>6364850
>>6364921
Cheers for the recs :)

>>6364813
Just keep in mind that most scientists never heard of those guys. If scientists cared about philosophy of science they would never discover anything,

Are these really the biggest names in philosophy of science?

>>6365405
Why?

>>6365430
>>6365430
Because they would be limited by truth. (induction is still inconclusive as of today for exemple)

A lot of science nowadays isn't even provable rigorously speaking. A lot of it is snake oil. You don't even see how limited science is unless you work in the field. It's literally scary.

It's actually a very complex problem you'd probably enjoy looking into

>>6365409
no, philosophy of science is a very tiny subcategory of epistemology

look into epistemology for more info

>>6365440
Are you a scientist?

>>6365447
No I'm a philo TA.
My dad is a biologist and my post was mainly his opinion regurgitated

>>6365450
Interesting. Wish I had a scientist or philosopher for a parent.

>>6365440
>>6365430
Because rigorously applying methodology would force you to believe you are a Boltzmann's brain and you should masturbate all day. Scientists work on intuition mostly. Philosophy of science is beeing taken from the shelf only in internet shitstorme when someone says "but evolution is just a theory!".

>>6365450
Well, it's very visible in biology ie everyghing around evolution paradigma. We assume life changes only through evolution so if 20 milions years ago aliens came to earth and fooled around with local fauna we would still provide evolutionary explenation. Just an example.

>>6364813
Trash Foucault, read the rest

>>6365440
Don't spout bullshit on subjects you're clearly ignorant about. This is only "true" (as in greatly exaggerated) in biology because of course, in purely theoretical qu physics, and to some extent chemistry.
>It's literally scary.

>>6365476
>mfw I studied epistemology for 7 years so a cocksucker on a chinese cartoon imageboard could talk shit to me

>>6365481
Did you come to any conclusions? No? Thought so. Congratulation, you just wasted 7 years of your live.

>>6365481
>implying that studying philosophy means you know shit about science

>>6365484
Well, I get to give bad grades to people like you and tip their fedora off, so I'm pretty happy about my situation.

>>6365491
weak bait

>>6365491
>knowing how knowledge is acquired means nothing about how you need to acquire knowledge

>>6365481
>I studied epistemology for 7 years

Dear Sir/Madam/Other,

I am writing to inquire about the Senior Epistemology Inspector role advertised on philosophyjobs.com. I enclose my CV for your consideration, and have attached my CRB to prove that I'm neither a nihilist nor a solipsist.

As you can see, not only do I have a philosophy degree and experience working in a similar role (freelance ontological semanticist), I have five years experience of arguing about qualia and determinism on a forum for Chinese Cartoon Enthusiasts.

I am a hard-working person who can reduce any debate to a squabble about linguistics. I'm flexible, loathe materialism, quick to pick up new skills, and I'm keen to work for a Epistemology retailer with a great reputation.

I am able to take on the responsibility of Senior Epistemology Inspector immediately, and have the enthusiasm and determination to ensure that all of your Epistemological conundrums meet the International Philosophical Standards.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this application and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Anon.

>>6365509
top kek

>>6365509
This is weak bait.
I'm working in my field as a TA. I'm taking the CAPES test next year.

What do you do for a living ? I eagerly await how you will dodge this question.

>>6365509
>m-muh philosophy is useless

>s-science builds rockets and shit

*likes I fucking love science on facebook*

>>6365527
Not even a scientism-fag, but it's not really a good defense against their arguments about how worthwhile your chosen subject is to say that you can get a job teaching said subject. That's true of most anything.

>>6365544
That's what he was attacking, and I don't have the time nor the will to justify the relevance of the very founding principles of civilization, especially when I'm being le epic trolled.

If you deny the importance of epistemology then you are either young, or deluded.

>>6365527
>I'm working in my field as a TA. I'm taking the CAPES test next year.
I'm so sorry to hear that.

>What do you do for a living?
I'm a senior hedge fund manager for my Fathers firm.

>>6365570
and I win once again !

>>6365546
>relevance of the very founding principles of civilization
The thing these people have to tell themselves!
ps- every religion, school of thought or any other group of hobbyists makes the same claim. You're welcome

>>6365544
>how worthwhile your chosen subject is to say that you can get a job teaching said subject.
If anyone says that they study philosophy, they're essentially saying they're studying to be a teacher.

>>6365574
You really are unable to catch my point, are you ?

This shall be my last post in this thread.

>>6365582
>This shall be my last post

>>6364813
Hi. First I would greatly recommend some introductory textbooks, then move to some books you already mentioned.

My list for you would be:

1. Philosophy of Science by A. Bird
2. Nature and Metaphysics by A. Bird
3. Philosophy of Science and Its discontents
4. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by T. Kuhn
5. Kuhn by A. Bird
6. The Logic of Scientific Discovery by K. Popper
7. Representing and Intervening by I. Hacking
8. Against Method by Feyerabend
9. Objectivity by Danston and Galison
10. History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions by Lakatos
11. On historicizing Epistemology by Lakatos
12. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress by H.Chang
13. Sistematicity by P. Hoyningen-Huene

>>6364813
Hi. First I would greatly recommend some introductory textbooks, then move to some books you already mentioned.

My list for you would be:

1. Philosophy of Science by A. Bird
2. Nature and Metaphysics by A. Bird
3. Philosophy of Science and Its discontents
4. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by T. Kuhn
5. Kuhn by A. Bird
6. The Logic of Scientific Discovery by K. Popper
7. Representing and Intervening by I. Hacking
8. Against Method by Feyerabend
9. Objectivity by Danston and Galison
10. History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions by Lakatos
11. On historicizing Epistemology by Lakatos
12. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress by H.Chang
13. Sistematicity by P. Hoyningen-Huene>

>6365446
If it is a subcategory of epistemology is an midly interesting subject. In some countries when they talk about epistemology they simply mean philosophy of science, while in others they mean theory of knowledge (which would be a more proper use of the word).

>>6365636
>Feyerabend

>>6365656
There's much to disagree with Feyerabend, but he is definitely a required reading for anyone interested in philosophy of science.

You just cannot read only the books that hold a similar view you do. You're most likely going to learn the most of those books you greatly disagree with.

>>6365684
>You're most likely going to learn the most of those books you greatly disagree with.
muh cisnormative dialectivism
you'll learn more from playing devil's advocate against books you do methodologically agree with

>>6365570
>I'm a senior hedge fund manager for my Fathers firm.

>>6365509
>Implying availability of wage labour is an indication of a subject's worth

>>6365636
Thanks for the recommendations :)
I'm also enjoying the shitstorm this thread has become