I've never met a scientist whose actual research or theorizing was influenced by philosophy of science. The philosophers are just shouting into the void.https://twitter.com/hardsci/status/1127260246689239041 …
-
feels gerrymandery to me, but i could be on board. fwiw some of his modularity stuff (not the stuff you cite) was published in the journal "philosophy of science" https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/289162 …. so you'd say that sometimes that journal publishes theoretical psychology that isn't philsci
It's an edge case, and you make fair points. My general message is, philosophy of science as currently practiced has very little influence on the everyday practices of scientists. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, but it doesn't.
-
-
Your pts are fair too. But in addition to specific cases like these, I think we (scientists) may be more influenced than we realize. And “philosophy of science as currently practiced” is such a huge mountain of work; hard to speak competently about all of it (as you seem to be?)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
everday science is about the subject matter (mating behavior of the stickleback or whatever) philsci is about underlying issues, implications for philosophy in general, etc there's no particular reason for philosophy of science to have much effect on everyday science
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is a much more defensible statement than your initial one. Philosophy of science “as currently practiced” often rests on inductivist and justificationist errors that were refuted long ago by Popper. Popper explained why science is possible and proposed rules of method.
Thanks. 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.