Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Chad Orzel
In which I object to philosophers looking down at the sort of science done by the vast majority of professional scientists: (lunchtime repost)
Some words in favor of scientists who choose to work within existing paradigms to make the world a better place.
Forbes Forbes @Forbes
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Wayne Myrvold 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @orzelc @ForbesScience
...and you manage to do it without mentioning any philosophers who are looking down on normal science?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Wayne Myrvold 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @orzelc @ForbesScience
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."
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
David N. Schwartz 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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ash Jogalekar 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @dschwa8059 @orzelc i 2 ostali
I get the feeling that it’s easier to appreciate normal science if you’re an experimentalist.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
David A. Oliver 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @orzelc @skdh @ForbesScience
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 ...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
David A. Oliver 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @orzelc @skdh @ForbesScience
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 ...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jon Butterworth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @orzelc @ForbesScience
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.)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
JoiningUnrelatedDots 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @orzelc @skdh @ForbesScience
Does "philosophers" in this context refer to theoretical physicists
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Matjaz Licer 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @orzelc @ForbesScience
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"