[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 73 KB, 638x451, popper-v-kuhn-1-638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8581584 No.8581584 [Reply] [Original]

Should science aspire towards the correspondence (ie Popper) or coherence (ie Kuhn) theory of truth?

Personally I prefer the pragmatic theory, but since it's not even in contention I'll take coherence as a close second.

>> No.8581605

>>8581584

Oh...You

Popper > ??? > Kuhn

That is.

>> No.8581802

>>8581584

Neither. Science isn't concerned with truth, just models.

>> No.8582624

>>8581584
Popper or die.

>> No.8582655

>>8581584
Science shouldn't give a shit about useless philosophistry.

>> No.8582660

I've always seen Kuhn's view not as one that defines the Right way to perform science, but describes the way that humans will inevitably tend to practice science given that they are fallible, emotional, and limited in knowledge.

In a perfect world we could carry out science with strict Popperian falsificationism, but we have to deal with the tools we have. Ultimately, all our inferences are performed by faulty human minds, and our understanding of science should reflect that.

>> No.8582667
File: 36 KB, 922x529, 1452440467556.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8582667

Science and philosophy will always be incompatible.

>> No.8582673

>>8582667
Science is a wholly contained subset of philosophy.

>> No.8582674

>>8581584
Popper, since falsification is really important for good scientific work and also you will embarras your self when you don't falsify.

>> No.8582682

>>8582674
Coherence theory doesn't say that you can't falsify anything, it says that multiple falsifiable theories might describe the same phenomena about as well as each other and that choosing between the two isn't as simple as looking at falsification.

>> No.8582686

>>8582673
>this is what brainlets actually want to believe

>> No.8582690

>>8582686
Science is wholly dependent on philosophy, yet they are separate subjects.

>> No.8582692
File: 44 KB, 576x713, 1458188701111.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8582692

>>8582690
Science involves no philosophy. Science uses FACTS and LOGIC. Useless drivel about "muh feelings" is not welcome in science.

>> No.8582694

>>8582690
>dependant
You should have learn in philosophy 101 that exploring the fundamental parts of something doesn't mean you are exploring the thing as a whole

>> No.8582702

>>8582692
"facts and logic" are philosophical objects

>> No.8582703

>>8581584
Kuhn's theory is more meta than Popper's. Popper described what we currently think is the correct while Kuhn notes that human is imperfect and we may understand we are wrong about the current method one day.

>> No.8582705

>>8582702
Bullshit. By the same reasoning you'd say my feces are "philosophical objects". You can't even define "philosophical object".

>> No.8582768

>>8582692
Holy shit you are a retard. Read a book and stop listening to meme science shows.

>> No.8582775

>>8582768
I've read more books than you. Books on science as well as philosophy. Aren't you projecting?

>> No.8583764

>>8582667
but logic is, by definition, a subset of philosophy.
How could you make that?

>>8581584
Anyway, Kuhns and Poppers theories aren't mutually exclusive. Within a paradigm, one can try to falsify theories to progress science and solve problems but most of the time scientists try to just solve problems and fit them within the current ideas. When something gets falsified (what Kuhn called extraordinairy research) we get launched into a new paradigm. For example - relativistic mechanics versus classical mechanics. This of course doesn't mean the former theory doesn't have merit anymore, it is still a model for the truth.