What's the "it" here?
Yes, I know the principles of the scientific method.
Yes, I am quite familiar with philosophy of science.
I'm not sure which you were referring to. I'm not sure what you are
considering to be "Theory of Science". If that's the same as
philosophy of science, then it gives a poor account of science. If
it is something different, I would appreciate any references or web
Just to clarify from a different perspective:- the above are two short
books which summarise much of the work of one of this century's most
influential philosophers. Both written in the 1990s, a clue to their
conception lies in Quine's statement that "Philosophy of science is
philosophy enough". Since his 1951 paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism",
Quine has made the case for the most austere empiricism in the history
of philosophy aka "Enlightened Empiricism". In some respects he could be
said to have brought the objectives of Positivism to fruition. In two
Dogmas" he shows that there are good grounds for rejecting the very
premise for there being a distinct philosophy (the pursuit of meaning
through the analysis of language) namely that of analyticity. This
leaves one with the pursuit of truth - science. Clarification of the
pursuit of truth becomes naturalized epistemology, (philosophy of
science). This in turn is to be rooted in the empirical analysis of
Those interested should consult the references given above and
It has some serious implications for the future of various lines of work
within what is widely referred to as "Cognitive Science" - for reasons
which may or may not now be immediately apparent. I have, in a number of
different threads, made an effort to explicate some of this over recent
weeks. What folk do and what they think they do should be looked at in
the context of research on actuarial vs. clinical judgement. A section
in the following paper covers an applied project's theoretical sections
and provides some of the key research findings and references.
other papers at that site are also relevant - though on first glance
they will appeal to few.
email@example.com (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message
"Things that work."
Universally accepted. The goal of comp.ai.philosophy. What is and is
not OT. The distinction between religion/esoteric philosophy and
logic/science. What Neil means by pragmatic thinking. What makes
programming useful. What makes behaviorism useful. What makes
cognitive science useful. What makes neuroscience useful. What Minsky
is trying to say. What Longely is trying to say. What Eray wants us to
ignore. Why Ken is not taken seriously. Why Curt is. What ended the
Dark Ages. What decides which culture will prevail. The common
denominator. The bridge between fields. A focus to promote civility
and teamwork. What we need to talk about to achieve AI of any kind.
What does and doesn't get Larry flames.
What the hell are you talking about? The philosophy of science,
as discussed by Popper, Feyerabend, and Lakatos is all about
the *process* by which scientific discovery can occur.
Just what do you suppose Feyerabend's "Against Method" is about?
Not "justification", you ignoramus.
My God but you're an arrogant preening prick -- and Fine's got his mouth
wide open for you.
That you think so shows what a weak grasp you have of the subjects
Quine discusses. Rickert asked Walz for references pertaining to the
"Theory of Science" that he was talking about. The notion
that Quine's books pertain to *that* is downright Platonic.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.