I have to say that I find that stuff much too vague to be of much use in practice. This, from 2011, says why.http://www.dcscience.net/2011/10/28/why-philosophy-is-largely-ignored-by-science/ …
-
-
-
Thanks for the link - perhaps not surprisingly, I somewhat disagree, but the race is not run at all, and much work is needed. My counterpoints are in this blog: https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2019/01/does-your-philosophy-of-science-matter.html …
- Još 4 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
It was one of my starting points - very introductory
(I remember reading it in Atlanta over Christmas and New Year, 2009) -
I read a couple of others (Ladyman, etc) and have read some of work summatized here, but this is really the one thst discusses all the stuff I would want my students to know. Great place to start!
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Very good on Lakatos, if I remember right?
-
Yes, very fair (which is not true in all intro books). I love Lakatis, re-read him a month ago and he is by far the philosopher of science I think provided the most pragmatic insights in how to do science.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Is this his last edition?
-
Third - you get a lot of positive attention in it (which is one of the reasons I like this as an introduction text).
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I still have this from an undergrad course in 2001. Pretty good cover art, too.pic.twitter.com/PHicV2UsLk
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Damn, I read that in undergrad philosophy. Such a good book
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.