Talk:Philosophy of science/Archive 5

message: Hi, i'm looking forward to insert a short text referring to constructive empiricism, if nobody has any objection, and wondering where to put it. It looks similar to instrumentalism (described in the paragraph "Scientifice realism") or constructivism (next paragraph) for their critics of the scientific realism. Chrisdel 15:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[constructive empiricism]]

message: Cause and effect: Jump of logic.
There is a joke about a behavioral scientest who concludes that a frog who was trained to leap on command, who had his legs temporarily amputated, could not hear, because it would not jump.
The joke reveals 'the jump of logic' that is contained within all conclusions; the logic may simply be false.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gkochanowsky, you do know that Popper was one of the definitive critics of proving things true, right? If you want an example of someone who sits around insisting on things being true, you're looking in just the wrong direction. CHE 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause and effect: Jump of logic. 

message: Although I like to think of myself as being reasonably clued-in on the philosophy of science, I'm guilty of knowing Popper's work only via secondary sources. The little I do know of Popper's philosophy has made me wonder more than once why Kuhn often gets a good mention regarding theory-dependence and Popper does not.
To my mind, Popper's thoughts on theory-dependence are not only more radical than Kuhn's, they were also published more than twenty years earlier (assuming he voiced them in 'Logic of Scientific Discovery'). I'm no Popper fan, but it strikes me as a bit dashed unfair that he doesn't get credit for this idea.
As I say, it's not the first time I've seen this happen, so I had to do a quick internet search to make sure I hadn't dreamed up the whole theory-dependence side of Popper. Here's one corroborating paragraph I found, I imagine there are  more (see http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/popper_and_the_philosophy_of_edu.htm): 
:Popper recognises that observations are themselves theory dependent and that methodologically it is always possible to refuse to accept the validity of an observation. For Popper theories are not matched against observations as if the world could be known a priori irrespective of any theories people have about the world. Rather theories are matched against each other. Moreover it is always possible to insulate a theory from criticism by surrounding it with ad hoc hypotheses which have the effect of invalidating any observation that is not consistent with the theory.
Not having the material for citation, I'm probably not the one to make the correction, so I hope my grumblings will encourage someone else to. --Chris 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Popper given credit for theory-dependence 

message: There's a short article titled Phenomenology (science) in need of improvement/rewriting.  Its content seems to fall more under philosophy of science than under science itself.  It has been proposed for a  merger into Particle physics phenomenology, although the latter has nothing to do with philosophy (and uses the term phenomenology in a very different way).  I don't know anything about philosophy of science and hoped to find some experts here to contribute to the discussion.  Thanks!  HEL 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenomenology in (the philosophy of?) science 

message: I see my edit that inserted "the" in front of "philosophy of science" has been reverted (diff), apparently having been discussed and rejected before. In that case, why is "the philosophy of science" used throughout the article, except for the three instances in the opening paragraph? Ben Ram 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency is always an issue on the multi-edited WP, and sometimes the the will indeed sound and flow better. But cf. Philosophy of physics, Philosophy of mathematics, Philosophy of biology...at the very least, it is standard to not have the the in either the article's title or at the first sentence. JJL 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The'' philosophy of science 

message: It appears that a lot of hard references have been used in this article.  But there hardly any in-line citations.  And the article is still start class.  It appears that no one has bothered or has been able to add a decent amount of footnotes.  Maybe, because no one cares.  That's sad.Kmarinas86 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Class 

message: What is this article about excaltly? the scientific theories, like  4.5 billion years ago... and stuff like that?
: No--it's about a branch of academic philosophy which has developed over the last few hundred years, trying to say what scientific knowledge is and how science works to produce it. CHE 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning 

message: Chrisrus 05:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  never say 'especially both' or 'especially all' 

message: I would like to maintain a sort of wish list here.  Please feel free to add to it.  Things I think should be mentioned in this article are.
# Realism 
# Demarcation
# Explanation
# Prediction
# Confirmation
# Progress
# Inductive logics
# The problem of induction (new and old)
# Underdetermination
# Philosophy of biology/physics/economics/chemistry
# Reductionism
# Simplicity
Maybe I'll add them as I have time. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: The balance needs to be redressed here. Arguably philosophers as such have struggled to keep up with mathematics and its closely related scientific disciplines in the 20th century and it has been left to likes of Penrose to redress this - while Popper etc argued about scientific method. Meanwhile the degree to which mathematics was closing in on the boundaries of knowledge got ignored. I believe this is being redressed by current philosophers.
All of this not suitable for asserting in the article though - but a plea to get the balance right !
Johnrcrellin 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The balance between what and what, exactly? CHE 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't this fact warrants a whole section.  I have added a sentence to the lead.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with your diagnosis of philosophy of science as practiced in the early to mid 20th century.  However, wikipedia is not the place to redress those failures.  Wikipedia's job is to document the state of the discipline over the last century (or so).  If the discipline has been focusing on certain things, that should be reflected in the article.  I would very much welcome you adding the criticism to the article so long as it is accompanied by cite and doesn't violate our prohibition against original research.  As an aside, many philosophers have acknowledged this failure and are working to make p.o.s. "closer to the ground".  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad we agree - and I quite see the point about what is appropriate for the actual article. At least I have Penrose in now and will try to add as you suggest when and if I get time to gen up enough ! Johnrcrellin 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy of Science by scientists

message: Heads up please:  Notice the last sentences in the section called "Demarcation":
:Many opponents of intelligent design claim that it does not meet the criteria of science and should thus not be treated on equal footing as evolution. Those who defend evolution either defend the view as meeting the criterion of science or challenge the coherence of this distinction.
This seems to contrast "opponents of intelligent design" and "Those who defend evolution", whereas in the context these are essentially the same.  The ones who "challenge the coherence of this distinction" (see passage) would be "those who defend intelligent design" or possibly "those who challenge evolution".
I don't want to touch it in case I am missing something.
--Sukkoth 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Sukkoth; notice the citation to the Discovery Institute source. Challenging the coherence of the distinction is not something one finds philosophers of science doing in defenses of evolution or criticisms of ID. Best to delete that final phrase. CHE (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I said "evolution" when I meant to say "intelligent design".  It has been fixed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed-up Sentence