[ 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: 57 KB, 323x499, CF0F82E7-5932-4585-ADDA-22AE703E4FF1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9900757 No.9900757 [Reply] [Original]

Anybody read any Kuhn? I’ve heard that his Paradigm theory is pretty much the way most contemporary scientists understand their own pursuits. Personally, it’s totally changed the way I think about scientific research and peer review, as well as the relationship between “scientific” and “non- scientific” disciplines.

Any other contemporaty philosophy of science writings that have influenced you?

>> No.9900763

>>9900757
>Kuhn
bloviating know-it-all

>> No.9901017

>>9900757
What the heck are you talking about? Most contemporary scientists don't think about philosophy of science. The few that do are little babies, naively believing some inductivist thing they mashed together. Have you even met one who knows Popper?

>> No.9902729

>>9900757
>I’ve heard that his Paradigm theory is pretty much the way most contemporary scientists understand their own pursuits. Personally, it’s totally changed the way I think about scientific research and peer review, as well as the relationship between “scientific” and “non- scientific” disciplines.

Although Kuhn was pretty influential I don't think his historic perspective is particularly nuanced.

>> No.9902733

>>9900757
I actually liked his Copernican Revolution book, but SSR was a snooze fest. I had to read both for a graduate history of science class.

>> No.9902782

>>9900757
No one gives a shit about a philosopher's fictions. There are no unifying philosophical principles or systems that cover the whole of so-called 'science'. This is because philosophy is too simplistic, uninformed, and naive to apply so resolutely to something as complex and dynamic as modeling reality. Anything you come up with will fall apart in practice.

>> No.9902817

>>9902782
based and redpilled

>> No.9902835

>>9900757
>Paradigm theory
>tries to make a theory about theories
>doesn't work

>> No.9902854

>>9902835
why didn't his theory about theories work?

>> No.9902867
File: 2.12 MB, 1716x1710, 1530882855759.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9902867

>>9902782
>t. Lawrence Krauss

>> No.9902944

>>9902867
kek, that does sound like something Krauss would write. His universe book was literal crap, I had never read such a poorly written popular science book on cosmology.

>> No.9902972

>>9900757
philosophy of science is a series of just-so stories that scientists tell to each other to justify what they have been doing since before the philosophy of science

>> No.9903119

>>9902782
ok but what about Kuhn

you can’t just make a general statement about philosophy of science without specifying the faults of any individual philosopher

>> No.9903138

>babby's first kuhn thread
finish the trifecta with lakatos and feyerabend and then come back. you've only heard a third of the story of philosophy of science in the late 1900s.

>> No.9903150

>>9902972
Most contemporary philosophy of science does little to “justify” anything. Kuhn and Popper raise more questions about “scientific objectivity” than they solve.

Philosophy of science is more about modeling the phenomenon of scientific pursuit than about conjuring justifications

>> No.9903178

>>9903138
>ignoring Hempel

If you’re just going to be a name- dropper then at least keep your names straight

>> No.9903195

>>9903178
if all you're doing is skimming the surface you dont need hempel

>> No.9903704

>>9902944
Try Krauss' book on Star Trek - literally the only book I gave up on.

>> No.9904014

>>9900757
>Any other contemporaty philosophy of science writings that have influenced you?

Mario Bunge, Patrick Suppes, Alex Rosenberg

>> No.9905593

Why is everyone such a dickhead in these threads. You're fucking anonymoys, no one cares what you pretend to know.

Kuhn is really good OP. People here are talking about him as if he's not a fucking physicist himself. His thinking is deep and I think he has a very similar view of science as to Hegel.

>> No.9905618

>>9900757
>Anybody read any Kuhn?
I did and it was frankly quite disappointing after the way everyone built it up for me.

>> No.9905619

>>9905593
>His thinking is deep
Not really, no.