|
@orzelc | |||||
|
In which I object to philosophers looking down at the sort of science done by the vast majority of professional scientists: forbes.com/sites/chadorze… (lunchtime @ForbesScience repost)
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Wayne Myrvold
@WayneMyrvold
|
31. sij |
|
...and you manage to do it without mentioning any philosophers who are looking down on normal science?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Wayne Myrvold
@WayneMyrvold
|
31. sij |
|
Popper is long gone. Yes, he disparaged "normal" science as Kuhn characterized it. But he denied that it was what the vast majority of professional scientists do.
"I believe that Kuhn is mistaken when he suggests that what he calls 'normal' science is normal." pic.twitter.com/37TZgpzxLG
|
||
|
|
||
|
David N. Schwartz
@dschwa8059
|
30. sij |
|
Fermi was a HUGE fan of normal science. To him, "revolutionary" physics was simply impossible without "normal" physics. In between his great discoveries he ground out normal science day in and day out.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Ash Jogalekar
@curiouswavefn
|
30. sij |
|
I get the feeling that it’s easier to appreciate normal science if you’re an experimentalist.
|
||
|
|
||
|
David A. Oliver
@DavidAOliverJr
|
31. sij |
|
I think that what Popper and Kuhn both fretted about was captured by this from P.E. Meehl: "Since the null hypothesis refutation racket is “steady work” and has the merits of an automated research grinding device, scholars who are pardonably devoted to making more money ...
|
||
|
|
||
|
David A. Oliver
@DavidAOliverJr
|
31. sij |
|
and keeping their jobs so that they can pay off the mortgage and buy hamburgers for the wife and kids are unlikely to contemplate with equanimity a criticism that says that their whole procedure is scientifically feckless and that they should ...
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jon Butterworth
@jonmbutterworth
|
31. sij |
|
well said. Personally I would also have added that in the absence of tough "normal science" (including normal particle physics) the paradigm-shifting grinds to a halt. (And IIRC Kuhn would've agreed.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
JoiningUnrelatedDots
@Mareeswj
|
31. sij |
|
Does "philosophers" in this context refer to theoretical physicists
|
||
|
|
||
|
Matjaz Licer
@MatjazLicer
|
31. sij |
|
There are many philosophies. The text attacks Popper's view, and rightly so. But it does so in a Hegelian fashion. Nothing wrong with that, just pointing out that similar dilemmas were well addressed within philosophy already long ago. Philosophy did not begin or end with Popper.
|
||
|
|
||