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.
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @Meaningness and
I like Hacking's approach to foundations in `Representing and Intervening`https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/202710.Representing_and_Intervening …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marick @JakeOrthwein and
His point, if I remember it right, is that science gets by without foundations because it allows ever more successful interventions in the laboratory, which is the same thing as allowing more interventions in the world.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marick @JakeOrthwein and
(I like it because I'm biased toward experimentalists, and so many philosophy-of-science people give all the status to the theoreticians and treat experimentalists as mere confirmers-or-disconfirmers.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @marick @JakeOrthwein and
Here's a nice snippet from the book, reporting on a Millikin-oil-drop-like experiment to find free quarks. It involved a hovering niobium ball.pic.twitter.com/aeYrizuuVn
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @marick @JakeOrthwein and
Yes; science gets real when it turns into engineering :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
(Speaking as an MIT guy here :)
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
Yeah, you're admirably candid about admitting your MIT background. I should note that the University of Illinois (land-grant colleges, represent!) was much more influential on me than CalTech, which I left after realizing I couldn't cut it in physics and their CS program sucked.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.