I suggest we're sorely lacking contemporary scientific philosophers with the courage to point out when the king has no clothes, while backing up their assertions with historical examples and logical fallacies, when possible.
I think Lee Smolin has attempted to pick up the mantle of Paul Feyerabend, to a small, peripheral extent, but why isn't scientific philosophy a highly respected discipline alongside science itself, with courses taught to all grad students?
What I want to see is a working mechanism for competitively evaluating the plausibility of computer models and ideologies--something that could put pebble accretion and planetary migration on a scale and weigh it against historical theories that went on to became scientific compared to those that failed.
Elie Thorne To me, theories falsified by new evidence which require fine tuning or ad hoc secondary mechanisms to stay on life support should be HUGE red flags, but I seem to be the only person who thinks so (anymore), or at least plays up the hugeness of the red flag.
Yeah, the anti-philosophy bent of certain major public outreach figures, especially NGT, is something I just don't get. Doing science without philosophy is hopeless. But then were it up to me I would make The Apology compulsory reading in schools from age 10.
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.
I suggest we're sorely lacking contemporary scientific philosophers with the courage to point out when the king has no clothes, while backing up their assertions with historical examples and logical fallacies, when possible.
ReplyDeleteI think Lee Smolin has attempted to pick up the mantle of Paul Feyerabend, to a small, peripheral extent, but why isn't scientific philosophy a highly respected discipline alongside science itself, with courses taught to all grad students?
What I want to see is a working mechanism for competitively evaluating the plausibility of computer models and ideologies--something that could put pebble accretion and planetary migration on a scale and weigh it against historical theories that went on to became scientific compared to those that failed.
Well, when major public scientists declare philosophy dead and/or obsolete, it's hard to have scientific philosophy to be respected as it should...
ReplyDeleteElie Thorne Do tell. Who's doing that?
ReplyDeleteStephen Hawking and Neil de Grasse Tyson at least
ReplyDeletehttps://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/massimo-pigliucci/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy_b_5330216.html
Elie Thorne To me, theories falsified by new evidence which require fine tuning or ad hoc secondary mechanisms to stay on life support should be HUGE red flags, but I seem to be the only person who thinks so (anymore), or at least plays up the hugeness of the red flag.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the anti-philosophy bent of certain major public outreach figures, especially NGT, is something I just don't get. Doing science without philosophy is hopeless. But then were it up to me I would make The Apology compulsory reading in schools from age 10.
ReplyDelete