[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 58 KB, 445x689, images - 2020-08-04T161517.845.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16047256 No.16047256 [Reply] [Original]

Anyone here /scilit/ as well? What are some science related books you're reading? Which ones do you recommend?

>> No.16047270

>>16047256
Science is stupid. Medieval "superstitious" peasants had knowledge of deeper and more spiritual aspects of life, such as how your faggotry has made your soul irredeemable.

>> No.16047287

>>16047256
Oh, I forgot to mention, this is not a scientific fiction general, but a general related to real science and literature.

I'll also recommend three books for beginners who want to learn more about the nature of science:
The Logic of Scientific Discovery - Popper
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Kuhn
Against Method - Feyerabend

>> No.16047309

Truth and Method- Gadamer
The Structure of Science - Ernst Nagel
Pandora's Hope - Latour

>> No.16047328

>>16047309
Interesting, I didn't know about any of those.

>> No.16047409

>>16047287
Here's a fun brainlet filter. Pick the odd one out.

>> No.16047593

>>16047409
You're the only brainlet here.

>> No.16048089

>>16047409
The answer depends. Popper is the odd one out insofar as both Kuhn and Feyerabend critique scientific dogmatism in different ways while Popper slacks behind with mere falsificationism. Feyerabend is the odd one out insofar as he goes full relativism whereas Kuhn and Popper stay a bit more conservative. Kuhn is the odd one out insofar as he's not some Austrian immigrant to Anglophone countries.

>> No.16048920

Bump for science.

>> No.16048945

I read a decent amount of essays and some books on phil of science back in my bachelor, but I really can't recall a lot of the names.
It is essential to start at Hume though no matter what, but then you can skip straight to Popper and Co.
Just know they never exceeded the limitations set by Hume's scepticism.

>> No.16049078

>>16048945
>Hume
Which book?

>> No.16049096

>>16049078
Obviously the only one directly relevant to the matter at hand without any extra fluff: An enquiry ...

>> No.16049100

>>16047256
Theology and the Scientific Imagination - Amos Funkenstein

>> No.16049119

>>16047270
>Medieval "superstitious" peasants had knowledge of deeper and more spiritual aspects of life

Any books on this?

>> No.16049156

>>16048089
Isn't Kuhn also an oddman in how radical his position on the development of science is when compared to Popper and Feyerbend who teamed up on him that one time iirc

>> No.16049317

>>16049119
They've been passed down orally, not written. You should go to countryside villages in Europe and ask the locals if you truly desire that kind of knowledge.

>> No.16049351

>>16049096
Only that one is the necessary intro before tackling philosophy of science?

>> No.16050032

>>16047409
Kuhn because it is descriptive, not normative
Or Popper because maths

>> No.16050043

>>16047256
Project Mars by Werner Von Braun.
Manual for a kickass journey to Mars, with some of Braun's philosophy sprinkled in. Oh and did I mention aliens? Now your interested, aren't you?

>> No.16050091
File: 611 KB, 437x689, assembly.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16050091

Post edit:

Project Mars by Werner Von Braun. Manual for a kickass journey to Mars (over 900 rocket launches to construct the fleet), with some of Braun's philosophy sprinkled in. Did I mention ayy lmaos and extraterrestrial theology/discourses on theistic evolution? The copy on archive.org is missing a couple pages, but is readable. Illustrations are included. I suggestion you see them first for perspective on the technical aspects. A significant portion of the book is an index of equation sheets lmao.
>tfw nazi writes book about a one-world government controlled via a giant domed building with parachute forces that could land anywhere on Earth to "settle revolutions" and a LITERAL ORBITAL NUKE CANNON
Braun the mad lad. Here are illustrations of the book included.

>> No.16050120
File: 165 KB, 417x588, 12323.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16050120

>>16050091
Kino departure scene

>> No.16050124
File: 517 KB, 439x674, departure.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16050124

>>16050120
Optimistic early-space-age feels

>> No.16050131
File: 463 KB, 433x687, deployment.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16050131

>>16050124

>> No.16050137

>>16050091
>nazi
Lost me there, I ain't reading no nazi shit, even though that looks interesting.

>> No.16050180
File: 182 KB, 437x542, 1232324.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16050180

>>16050137
Oh, and did I mention towards the end of the novel, a large portion is dedicated to refuting consoomer/one-world-government/communistic sameness. It's a massive theme of the book, once the ayy lmaos get involved. Spoilers below:

The ayys basically lose all sense of adventure because they live in a utopian consumer society on Mars, so they don't bother to visit Earth, so that explains why the adventurous Earthlings reach Mars first. Neverthless, Martian society is not all bad. Funny once you realize Von Braun was the man who wrote this.

>> No.16050196

>>16047287
Dump those and just read Lakatos.

>> No.16050204

>>16047309
Gadamer and Latour are pseuds. The Nagel book is a classic, though.

>> No.16050230
File: 1.89 MB, 1046x1460, Philosophy_3_Science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16050230

>>16047256
See pic related for the canon.

>> No.16050244

>>16050032
What are you blathering about? Popper has nothing to do with "maths".

>> No.16050256

>>16049156
No one is more radical than Feyerbend. He's radical to the point of worthlessness. But Kuhn is the "odd man out" in the sense that he is a historian while P & F are philosophers.

>> No.16050277

>>16050244
Popper literally made a new axiomatic system for probability to support his views.

>> No.16050369

can I get some recs for books on contemporary science that aren't philosophy of science but also aren't mouth-breathing pop-sci?

>> No.16050384

>>16050277
More or less every philosopher of science develops formal models to clarify their views. Popper's rendition of Peirce's propensity theory of probability is still discussed by a few philosophers, but it has no relevance for the mathematical study of probability.

>> No.16050458

>>16050384
I didn't say he had influence in maths or in probability theory. The fact is that his book is way more math-heavy than the other two.

>> No.16050513

>>16050458
There is no math in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery'. Just philosophy and logic.

>> No.16050530

>>16050513
I guess the binomial distribution and the law of large numbers are philosophy and logic then.

>> No.16050593

>>16050530
Common knowledge.

>> No.16050865

>>16050180
>196 pages
But on Amazon it says it's 112 pages...

>> No.16050918

>>16050865
I take the extremely expansive index of diagrams, reference tables, and equation sheets to be not counted in the page count?

>> No.16050929

>>16050918
I don't know, what edition are you reading?

>> No.16050958

>>16050929
https://archive.org/details/ProjectMars/mode/1up

>> No.16051037

>>16050369
There’s not much unless you’re into reading straight up textbooks that assume you’re already an undergrad in their field. Feynmann’s published lectures are the best fit I can think of.

>> No.16051300
File: 64 KB, 460x679, 28B763C6-8BA8-441D-B6D1-8FCC884C36F3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16051300

I have a few science books slated.

Mycelium Running, Stamets
The Sixth Extinction, Kolbert
Chaos, Gleick
Annals of the Former World, McPhee
Who Are We and How We Got Here, Reich
What Should We Do with Our Brains, Malabou

Anyone read these? Thoughts?

>> No.16051309

>>16050593
bad faith backpedalling manchild

>> No.16051351

>>16047270
Yep it's schizo time!

>> No.16051373
File: 144 KB, 750x428, 465205A6-5545-4222-B8C5-580C856402D9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16051373

>>16047270
Louis Pasteur

>> No.16051598

>>16051300
>Who Are We and How We Got Here, Reich
>
>Anyone read these? Thoughts?
I read the Reich book. It's a solid overview of the state of current archaeogenetics. His lab at Harvard processes the majority of ancient DNA finds, so he is very well informed on the evidence. Recommended.

>> No.16051609

>>16051309
It's philosophy of science. There's going to be some grade-school math involved regardless.

>> No.16051921

>>16051598
Neat. Thanks.

>> No.16053354

Bump

>> No.16055228

>>16049317
keep LARPing amerimutt.

>> No.16055297

I have a Mathematics backgroud, but have never read aboud philosophy or history of science and math. Any recommendations? I'd ask /sci/ but that board is fucking cancer.

Thanks btw, and sorry for my bad english.

>> No.16055381

>>16047270
>Medieval "superstitious" peasants had knowledge of deeper and more spiritual aspects of life
I’m sure that helped them tremendously during the plague

>> No.16055862

How do i get into Quine?

>> No.16055880

>>16055297
Ray Monk’s Wittgenstein biography is easy to get into and might leave you hungry for more.

>> No.16055896

Pierre Duhem's history of science. He'll redpill you on the Medievals.

>> No.16055950

>>16055297
Heisenberg wrote a book about the metaphysical implications of QM and referenced the old greeks a lot, he dabbled in philosophy quite a bit and was very good at it too.

>> No.16055965

>>16055950
Based. Presocratics were fucking chads. It blows my mind how they could be so smart

>> No.16056003

>>16051351
ngmi

>> No.16056042

>>16047256
The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

>> No.16056143

I took ops book out of the library and did not read one page.

>> No.16056396

>>16055880


>>16055950

Thank you both. I'll start reading them this evening.

Is heisenberg's text "Truth Dwells In The Deeps"?

>> No.16056424

>>16048945
Locke, then Hume. Once you are finished with them dipshits, read Berkeley and go back to where you started. The Greeks. They were right all along.

>> No.16056895
File: 352 KB, 1600x2417, 814uU7gwl2L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16056895

>>16055950
>>16056396
Heisenberg is fine as a kind of journalistic "i was there" account of the development of quantum theory, his ill-formed mystical musings informed by the early debates held with people like bohr and einstein, but as rigorous philosophical analysis of the physics it falls kind of short. >>16050230 has some better recommendations in that regard. There's always going to be some mathematics involved with this, but you can at least get a sense for where the conceptual difficulties in our physical models still remain and the best interpretations and ontologies that we have for them. Tim Maudlin and David Albert are great for that. I'd also recommend Quantum Ontology by Peter Lewis for an overview of competing interpretations. JS Bell's collection is a classic

>> No.16057441

>>16056895
Thanks, awesome recommendations.

>> No.16057498

>>16055862
Read these papers: "On What There Is," "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," "Truth by Convention," "Reference and Modality," "Ontology and Ideology." Read his book Word and Object.

>> No.16057506

>>16055381
>t. coronavirus faggot w no toilet paper

>> No.16057704

>>16050137
lol fuck off bigot you weren't gonna read it to begin we because both know you don't read books

>> No.16057729

>>16057704
calm down guy you're not making any sense

>> No.16057783

>>16057729
MUH NAZIS
>He [von Braun] had an affair in Paris with a French woman later in 1943, while preparing V-2 launch sites in northeastern France. She was imprisoned for collaboration after the war and became destitute.[20]:147–148
Happen to have sex with someone? The 'good guys' will ruin your life out of spite.

>> No.16057856

>>16049351
for phil of sci: unironically yes.
for phil: follow what that other anon replied to my initial post

>> No.16058261

>>16056424
Isn't Locke a political philosopher? Why is he relevant in philosophy of science?

>> No.16059394

>>16058261
Locke was also an empiricist who wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, it was an influence on Berkeley and Hume.

>> No.16060161

Bump

>> No.16060179

>>16049100
that's a great book and nobody knows about it

>> No.16060220
File: 11 KB, 277x182, semiconductor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16060220

>>16047256
>>16047287
no but I'd like to be. I was given copies of the Kuhn and Feyerabend by an old coworker who did studied phil in college back in like the 60s, and philosophy of science was his jam. He was doing physics, read some phil sci, and said fuck this shit and just became an engineer.

I guess... what? Reading Kuhn and Feyerabend is going to make me feel that science is LESS grounded than I believe / perceive it to be? "Yadda yadda correlation does not imply causation; we cannot objectively PROVE anything out; we can just see patterns" - is that the kinda shit these fellas are getting at?

>> No.16060360

late night 1:36am Eastern Standard Time bump

>> No.16061606

>>16060220
>Reading Kuhn and Feyerabend is going to make me feel that science is LESS grounded than I believe / perceive it to be?
Yes, basically