/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5016852]

Hey there, /lit/, I have an interest about epistemology and the philosophy of science but I'm still a pleb. Any recommendations for a starter? Please, books from philosophers, not about the subject in itself nor introductions.

[Anonymous No.5016863]

>>5016852
Please, books from philosophers, not about the subject in itself nor introductions.

New to philosophy? Need some advice?
Warning: This is prewritten and not spellchecked.
First piece of advice would be to disregard any recommendations made by tripfags. Why? They care only for their image. They have no genuine interest in offering any useful advice. Dismiss it all.
Secondly, do not fall victim to the recommendation of beginning your journey through philosophy (or any field) with a history book or novelization (like Sophie's World or Confessions of a philosopher). These are entertaining, but offer very little actual data on the field, apart from some historic trivia and superficial explanaitions on some theories.
Thirdly, do not be afraid of textbooks! They are the best place to start. They might be dry and loaded, but worthed it.
Last piece of advice is to not jump blindly into primary sources. Do not read philosophy books until you've read secondary literature (textbooks, companions, guides) and have made an outline according to the data in those books.
It would be best to begin with the blackwell companion to philosophy. It elaborates, in an easy, but detailed manner on all the major fields of philosophy, its theories and issues and the major exponents in philosophy as a whole.
Here's a link: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=Blackwell+Companion+philosophy&open=0&view=simple&column=def

[Anonymous No.5016864]

>>5016852
>I have an interest about epistemology and the philosophy of science but I'm still a pleb.
>pleb
>Any recommendations for a starter?
>starter
>books from philosophers
>not about the subject in itself
>nor introductions.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5016869]

>>5016852
So you want an introduction but not an introduction.

/thread

[Anonymous No.5016872]

Science doesn't need no epistemology other than the scientific method. Literally everything philosophers ever said about science was uneducated opinionated nonsense ranging from "muh god is better than science" to "u cannot know nuthin". Researchers in science usually don't care about the misconceptions and misunderstandings of philosophers. They just continue to use the scientific method because it works for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.5016876]

>>5016872
what is reading comprehension?

[Anonymous No.5016888]

>>5016863
This is stupid, you are stupid, stop pasting it

[Anonymous No.5016889]

>>5016869
It is kind of "I want the books from the philosophers but not books about the philosophers and philosophy."

[Anonymous No.5016891]

>>5016876
the thing you're lacking

[Anonymous No.5016896]

>>5016852

[Anonymous No.5016901]

>>5016872
You're veritably stupid.

[Anonymous No.5016908]

>>5016872

This is a post written by the average uneducated sciene fiction enthusiast that has yet to read any book on philosophy. Notice the use of common thought-terminating cliches like "u cannot know nuthin" and a reference to religion (disregarding that the first instances of atheism came from philosophy and that most philosophy operates from a secular pov).

[Anonymous No.5016920]

>>5016888
Put your trip back on. All of that is useful advice. You dont even read books written by philosophers in college level philosophy. You read segments. Novelizations are a waste of time and trips are always a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.5016964]

>>5016901
My IQ is >170.

>>5016908
I have a science degree, I have read a lot of philosophy and I despise genre fiction. Keep your projections to yourself, kid.

[Anonymous No.5016976]

>>5016964
>My IQ is >170

[Anonymous No.5016985]

>>5016920
>You dont even read books written by philosophers in college level philosophy. You read segments.

is it bad that i find this stupid

'let us arbitrate that which is worth reading and that which isn't for people who have seen material from neither category'

[Anonymous No.5016994]

>>5016964
anyone who thinks they are clever and then goes on to state their IQ is anything above 140~ seriously worries me

[Anonymous No.5017001]

>>5016994
Why? Because intelligent people make you feel insecure?

[Anonymous No.5017016]

>>5016863
Fuck you man, I read The Phenomenology of Spirit without any of that crap and did pretty well.

[Anonymous No.5017028]

>>5017001
no, because the grading on an IQ test is based on a curve that makes any result above around 150 seriously unreliable

that and not all IQ tests are equal

feynmans IQ was 125 or something, does that make him dumber than whoever this dude is?

[Anonymous No.5017047]

>>5017001
I have an IQ of 193. Don't think even think that you phase me.

[Anonymous No.5017111]

>>5017047
Nice sentence.

[Anonymous No.5017131]

>>5017028
Anon claimed I was "stupid". My high IQ proves him wrong. What's your problem?

>>5017047
Jacob?

[Anonymous No.5017146]

>>5017131
you have got to be shitting me, right

[Anonymous No.5017151]

>>5017146
Your fecal metaphor makes no sense in this context.

[Anonymous No.5017179]

>>5016852

Critique of Pure Reason

Conjectures and Refutations

Word and Object

Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy

[Anonymous No.5017195]

>>5017179
>>5016852

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

fuck, duh.

[Anonymous No.5019092]

>>5017179
very bad advice

[Anonymous No.5019505]

>>5016852
Russell, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend

[Anonymous No.5019507]

>>5017179
critique of pure reason
>implying kant is in any way relevant anymore
_got_it_all_wrong_

[Anonymous No.5019509]

Feyerabend - Against Method

Has some bullshit parts (Chinese medicine is good too duuuurrrrr), but the parts about how scientific process actually works ("anything goes") is genius and much more realistic than what Popper used to say.

[Anonymous No.5019653]

>>5019507
All of modern psychology still revolves around the subject/object-dichotomy so he's still relevant even if you think he's wrong and root for eliminative materialism.

[Anonymous No.5019708]

start by reading some plato.edu - it presents up to date and concise summary on just about every topic in philosophy, referencing papers too.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/
As an example

[Anonymous No.5019858]

Both are immensely broad fields and your not being specific enough indicates that you're indeed a "pleb". If you're a "pleb", recommending a book or a bibliography that is of higher abstraction and theoreticizing makes no sense. Quit farting higher in proportion to where your ass is.

The one and only start I could possible think of would be a thorough reading of Descartes, Berkeley and Hume.

And get over your sophomore-like conviction that "Surely, I'll understand Popper, Wittgenstein and Lakatos without any background knowledge (= fluency in highschool physics and formal logic, and relatively well-read in the history of science)! What could possible go wrong? My mom thinks I'm smart."and start with the basic texts. Unless you're in it for a rude awakening.

[Anonymous No.5019882]

>>5017028
>arguing with obvious trolls/autists on the internet
It's because of people like you that these autismal people return to spout their uninformed opinions

[Anonymous No.5020244]

>>5016852
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

[Anonymous No.5020730]

>>5019509
Feyerabend is creationist tier with his "muh fairy tales are just as true as science".

[Anonymous No.5021052]

>>5020730
Fairy tales are just as true as science. All epistemologies rest on induction, and preference between inductive descriptions is normative. Preference for apparatus to produce potential moments of induction is also normative.

We well know that no normative distinctions can be drawn in a manner that is "true," go ask the moral philosophers.

Also the majority of scientific explanations produced are "just so" stories for funding bodies, with as much connection to the actual science as a fairy tale to the reality of your parents trying to starve you to death in subsistence agriculture.

[Anonymous No.5021079]

>>5016852
On The Fourfold Root by Schopenhauer. A genuinely classic treatment of epistemology. Look for the E. F. J. Payne translation.

[Anonymous No.5021139]

>>5016852

Thaetetus
The Republic
Physics
Anything by Descartes
The Critique of Pure Reasoning
Hume's Inquiry on Human Understanding
Introduction to The Study of Experimental Medicine
Whatever you can find by Bachelard on the Subject
The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology

+ Koyré, Popper, Kuhn, Heidegger's conferences on the subject

[Anonymous No.5021216]

>>5016863
This is puke-inducing. Reading what someone else wants you to think about a book before you've read the book is for the mentally callow.

OP, read Bacon's "Novum Organum" and Descartes's "Discourse on the Method" and "Meditations" to start. Also good are Newton's own introduction to his "Principia" and Lavoisier's introduction to his "Essays Physical and Chemical".

[Anonymous No.5021264]

>>5019507

>implying you can ever have a schema-free science

>>5019092

only recommendations, and much of the ideas presented are at odds with one another--so which one is a bad recommendation?

[Anonymous No.5021271]

>>5016852
Epistemology?

Read Descartes' Meditations, followed by Berkeley and Hume. Then round it off with Kant.

[Anonymous No.5021273]

>>5019708

this is the best offering in this thread.

[Anonymous No.5021286]

>>5016852
You might want to ask yourself why you have an interest in these fields, especially if you've had very little experience with it. You could be romanticizing philosophy, thinking it's about profound truths, and that studying philosophy will "enrich" you, or something equally ambiguous. In actuality, philosophy is inconsequential wordplay with abstruse and ambiguous terms.

[Anonymous No.5021303]

>>5016852
1. Amazon search "introduction to epistemology" and "introduction to the philosophy of science." Purchase, download, library, etc.
2. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil, the Internet Encyclopedia of Phil, and Wikipedia on these topics and peruse things in the bibliography.
3. Check Open Culture, Coursera, and other online education resources for lectures.
4. Check This Modern Scholar and The Great Courses for lectures. The guidebooks have great bibliographies

[Anonymous No.5022676]

>>5016852


'parmenides' by heidegger
'what is called thinking' by heidy
'identity and difference' by my negger
'what is a thing' by some guy you may know
'foundations of logic' by slyfegger
'principle of reason' by h-dog
'epistemic authority' by zagzebski
'virtues of the mind' by zagzebski
'what computers still cant do' by dreyfus
'descartes error' by damasio
'metaphysics as a guide to morals' by murdoch
'rival versions of moral enquiry' by macintyre
'cognition in the wild' by hutchins
'the new science of the mind' by rowland
'philosophy in the flesh' by lakoff
'language; a biological model' by millikan
'communities of practice' by wenger
'metaphysical principles of infinitesimal calculus' by guenon
'more precisely' by steinhart
'philosophical devices' by papineau
'modal logic as metaphysics' by williamson
'theory and evidence' by koslowski
'the black swan' by taleb
'antifragile' by taleb
'tools of critical thinking' by levy
'a treatise on probability' by keynes
'the art of causal conjecture' by shafer
'peirce and the threat of nominalism' by forster
'the essential peirce' by peirce
'Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione' by spinoza
'commentary on posterior analytics' by aquinas