New special issue in Synthese. Now reading: Bschir, Lohse, & Chang (2019). Introduction: systematicity, the nature of science? Synthese , Vol. 196(3), 761–773 1/n
-
Show this thread
-
"A major obstacle for the logical empiricists was the problem of finding a workable verificationist criterion of meaning. (...) the full logical reduction of theoretical statements to purely observational statements turned out to be more difficult than expected (Carnap 1936)" 2/n
1 reply 4 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
"(...) The logical empiricists finally had to accept the fact that science contained non-reducible, experience-transcending statements that could neither be reduced to observational statements nor be fully verified by use of inductive methods" 3/n
1 reply 3 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
"In light of these serious problems, Carl Hempel suggested a shift away from a strictly positivist program towards an analysis of the methodology of empirical science and a focus on topics like explanation, reduction, theory and simplicity (Hempel 1950, 1951)." 4/n
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
On Hoyningen-Huene’s systematicity theory: "Hoyningen-Huene’s book is a refreshing renewal of the attempt at drawing a general picture of science, and engaging with questions about the nature of science in general. Hoyningen-Huene’s main thesis is rather straightforward:.." 5/n
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
"Scientific knowledge distinguishes itself from other forms of knowledge through a higher degree of systematicity (...) to account for the manifold ways in which systematicity presents itself in science, Hoyningen-Huene unfolds the concept of systematicity along 9 dimensions" 6/n
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
"descriptions, explanations, predictions, defense of knowledge claims, critical discourse, epistemic connectedness, an ideal of completeness, knowledge generation, and the representation of knowledge. A scientific discipline need not be systematic in all of the 9 dimensions." 7/n
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
"Hoyningen-Huene’s approach has 2 key advantages. First, the complexity & diversity of the scientific enterprise is taken seriously instead of reducing science to a small number of core disciplines that philosophers of science happen to like most (i.e. physics, biology, etc " 8/n
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
"Second, it works bottom-up by looking at a great number of different scientific subfields and only then conceptualizing the main elements of science as a whole." 9/n
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
"This is indeed an advantage of the approach, as it avoids certain forms of philosophy-of-science-imperialism, where every scientific discipline is squeezed into a narrow framework that has been derived from looking at only a small fragment of the scientific enterprise." 10/n
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread
Log pos/empiricism failing is a very timely history lesson.
-
-
- 2 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.
