Have you read Beginning of Infinity yet? 
-
-
Replying to @homsiT @reasonisfun
No. About once every three months I re-read the blurb/introduction and re-conclude that I’m not going to get anything out of it. I could be wrong :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
I ask because, in your terms, I definitely made the trip from stage 4 to 5 practically painlessly and BoI was a big part of that. Also I am very confident you are indeed wrong :)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @homsiT @reasonisfun
What I would like to read is a philosophically sophisticated argument for critical rationalism that takes seriously the standard objections to it. I have not found one, and BoI does not appear to be that. If anyone can recommend one, I would be very grateful!
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
I think
@reasonisfun might be help help you with that And fair enough, I would like to read the standard objections! Do you have a specific piece you'd reference?1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @homsiT @reasonisfun
Peter Godfrey-Smith’s _Theory and Reality_ has an introductory overview of criticisms from a philosophical perspective. Just at the level of logic, it doesn’t do the work it would need to do.pic.twitter.com/P07TV8QsCs
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
More importantly in my view, it totally fails to explain empirical studies of what successful science does in practice. That empirical work is done in the history and ethnography of science.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
There are a few pages in BoI that discuss "bad philosophy of science" which show he hasn't read it. There's basically only one specific thing he says, which is that Kuhn was an anti-realist, which is absolutely incorrect.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
I don't have an opinion on Kuhn, but I would only hazard you to not miss the forest for the trees, or hold an undue bias against an entire book for one mistake (if it's that) :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @homsiT @reasonisfun
Well, I believe it is a great book in several ways. For instance, it inspires belief in scientific progress, which I think is extremely important, and increasingly under attack.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
As a theoretical account of how science works, it appears not to be a serious attempt. He hasn't read the literature and doesn't know what it says and doesn't consider that relevant.
-
-
To some extent, I think you pick things up where Deutsch and Popper leave off: with the recognition that science can lack an ultimate foundation, yet still make progress. There are parallels, too, between your account of meta-rationality and Deutsch's CR conception of rationality
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.