/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5725881
this bitch.
also: Popper.

Yes. Every science student should be familiar with Hitchens' razor.

>>5725890

I am on my phone and annoy run a google reverse image search... So who's that guy?

>>5725907

you mean

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

>>5725920

David Hume, I believe

>>5725917
Yeah, but "Hitchens' razor" sounds edgier.

>>5725920
Are you too illiterate to read file names?

Just take an intro Phiolosphy of Science course.

Hume, Popper, Kuhn. Throw in some Feyerabend for an alternate viewpoint.

Paul Feyerabend. Fun and interesting to read, very proper to the point. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism
Just look at how it looks at you. LOOK AT IT.

>>5725922
yep. Dude was ahead of his time.
>>5725940
I always forget about Kuhn because I've never actually read him. but yeah, him as well.

>>5725943
>hurr durr science is wrong

Fuck off to >>>/lit/ with your anti-science propaganda.

Popper
Kuhn
Lakatos
Feyerabend
Rorty

Virtually all philosophy of science between 1930 & 1970

Please don't make the typical scientist mistake of treating philosophers as authoritative ( I mean thinking things like, "well Hume said it and it's written down, so it must be accurate/true"). Philosophers certainly have thought about their work a lot more than most people have, but a key fact of philosophy as an ongoing discipline is that it's a discourse. You can't take a snapshot from one author and treat it as fact.

>>5725943
Against Method somewhat struck me as a solution looking for a problem. One of his main objections was against people using strict definitions of what a science is or what methods are valid, but I don't think many people actually use that approach to science in real life.

>>5725946
Kuhn said some good stuff. In a nutshell, his argument was that regular scientific practice isn't just about rationality, but about a willingness to ignore anomalies in theory until they become so persistent and impossible to resolve that everyone decides to move to a new theory out of the hope that it will resolve those anomalies, even if the new theory isn't as well developed or maybe even reopens old, plugged holes in the previous theory.

It gets a lot of shit from scientists who don't like to admit that they're human and not 100% rational 100% of the time, but personally I think his ideas (while maybe not completely on the ball) are relevant enough to at least keep in mind.

>>5725967
This

>>5725962
>Against Method somewhat struck me as a solution looking for a problem
Well, that's the point of any philosophical endevour, isn't it? You've got to think for yourself, and there's no final answer.
People work as scientists mostly in other ways, yes, and have very odd beliefs (like 'physics discovers the truth about the universe' -> out of the mouth of a colleage). But that's not the point : no epistemology book will 'teach' you how to work as a scientist. It will aid you in fruitless discussions mostly. Even more, in not-scientific discussions, like 'religion vs science' or the like. It won't make you a better worker as a scientist, but will make you (or try to) a more critical and reasonable person.

>>5725963
You are completely mistaken. Science is not wrong. People using science as an excuse to portray their beliefs is wrong. That's the point of Feyerabend. Even when the beliefs are popularly un-questioned. I'm all for science, and nothing for belief.

Bump.

Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.