Talk:Philosophy of science

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Intersubjectivity

“One result of this view is that specialists in the philosophy of science stress the requirement that observations made for the purposes of science be restricted to intersubjective objects. “

Who stresses this? I can’t find anyone stressing it. Googling intersubjective merely gives me its use in psychoanalysis, psychology and communication with infants.

120.153.26.4 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Pepper

Theory-dependence of observation

The relativist interpretation of the theory-dependence of observation is shared by few philosophers of science, and by no scientists, which is why an encyclopedia article shouldn't treat it as fact. Also, theory-dependence of observation is itself a controversial issue, though less so than its radical interpretation. I have added a short introductory paragraph to make the reader aware of this.

It is indeed fashionable among literary intellectuals to disparage the objectivity of scientific research. The incommensurability thesis often serves as an argument within this discourse. However, we should aim to keep our own biases in check, rather than impose them on the unwitting reader. The incommensurability thesis is just that: a thesis, and no actual evidence in its favor has been proposed to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artblakey (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But this section isn't about a relativist interpretation -- it's about theory-dependence, which (as I mentioned in my edit summary) is far from controversial and is discussed by much more mainstream philosophers of science than Kuhn (who is himself pretty mainstream these days). Now there may be some literary intelectuals who misinterpret Kuhn as supporting some sort extreme relativism, but that's worth mentioning as an aside (if at all), not in the lead paragraph of a section on theory-dependence of observation. So I'm going to revert again. If you think this relativistic view is worth discussing (and if you have references to support its currency among "literary intellectuals"), please discuss it later in this section or in its own section. As a lead paragraph, it creates the impression that only radical relativists believe that observation is theory-dependent, which is manifestly false. Klausness (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is not to say, by the way, that this section couldn't use some clarification and cleanup (for example, the reference to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is kind of out of left field there). I'll try to do that if I have time... Klausness (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done some rewording. I'm sure it could use more work, but I hope it's a bit better now. Klausness (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of Chemistry

I think this section needs some work. For example, the following question honestly sounds rather silly: "In the philosophy of chemistry, for example, we might ask, given quantum reality at the microcosmic level, and given the enormous distances between electrons and the atomic nucleus, how is it that we are unable to put our hands through walls, as physics might predict?"

In fact, physics does NOT predict that we should be able to put our hands through walls. Although we have discovered that matter consists of tiny particles which, if at rest, would occupy a small percentage of the total space, this is a far cry from saying that these tiny particles should not (as the author imagined it) bump into each other. The answer to the question is much simpler than quantum mechanics. In two words: electromagnetic repulsion. Have you ever put two N's or two S's of magnets together? They repel, right? Well, atoms and molecules occupy space not by filling up a volume with stuff but by electromagnetic fields. So when you bump into something, essentially the spacial resistance you are feeling is electromagnetic repulsion at the atomic level. Of course, MO theory offers a more complex answer, but it is all electromagnetics, which, by the way, is the basis of quantum mechanics at the atomic and molecular level. No one who understands quantum mechanics would ever ask such a question. So physics, in no way whatsoever, predicts such a silly situation as hands being able to go through walls.

Also, in regards to the difference between chemistry and physics, there are some overlaps. Quantum mechanics, for example is definitely both a physics thing and a chemistry thing. Other differences are just semantics and classifications that enable people to do research more easily, but of course there is overlap.

A better type of question that the philosophy of chemistry might ask is what is the relationship between chemical theories and reality. For example, all chemists learn about "electrophilic" and "nucleophilic," and these classifications help chemists to design and predict reaction outcomes, but do they actually represent reality? So many chemicals theories are not based on direct observations but rather models that fit the data well. These models enable us to improve technology, but what is their connection to reality? That is where chemistry and philosophy intersect, not (at least in my opinion) in silly questions that arise from a complete misunderstanding of complex scientific theories like quantum mechanics.

Oh, and you shouldn't write "quantum reality." Quantum mechanics is NOT "reality," it is a theory. It is a darn good theory, but it is not "reality." There is a difference, and I think every philosopher should know the difference. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical model that tries to model and understand reality, but the model is not reality itself. Science is always trying to correct and improve itself and get closer to reality, if that is possible.

Somebody please rewrite this section Rockemet, Stanford (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese philosophy of science

I think this is an interesting topic, but it is poorly written and very short. I know nothing about Traditional Chinese philosophy of science, and after reading this section, I still know nothing about Traditional Chinese philosophy of science. Please, write something here understandable and well-written to satisfy the curiosity of us all :) Rockemet, Stanford (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial Sentence

Ed Poor just changed ""Philosophy of Science" is the study of..."" to '"The philosophy of science" studies the assumptions...

I think maybe the addition of the article is a good idea.

However, which is closer to the literal truth, that PoS is the study of blah blah, or Pos studies blah blah? I don't think PoS actually studies anything, technically, but rather is the study of something.

A good faith edit and some improvement, Ed Poor, but please consider what I've said.Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How about if we figure out what to do with the second sentence and most of them thereafter? To many cooks have spoiled this broth. philosofool (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "too many cooks" aspect. Let's discuss these things.

As for the initial sentence, to my layman's mind there is no significant difference between:

• X is the study of; or,
• X studies

Now, literally, a "body of knowledge" cannot "study" anything. A chemistry book cannot perform experiments, so can we really say that chemistry has discovered something? No, it would have to be a chemist - or maybe a whole bunch of chemists.

All I care about is defining what the philosophy of science is. What field of knowledge is it? What does it cover? What does it entail?

This is important, because this field of study may have certain presuppositions; these should be made explicit. The field may have various schools of thought; these should be identified. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Magisterium

I think that the word Magisterium would be appropriate when talking about the scientific community, in this article, in other articles and in other writings and publications, because of the consensus approach within scientific circles that often mirrors that of closed communities (cf Consensus Patrum). I think that this was Paul Feyerabend's fundamental epistemological criticism on the pretensions of modern science, namely that of constituting a scientific society by using the same kind of social control tools as that of religion. Feyerabend compares Science to a Church or Community and cynically says that the only reason that there have been conflicts between Church and Science is because both of them are structured like Churches.[1] ADM (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Continental Philosphy of Science

This section in the article suggests that there is something like one closed Continental school of Philosphy of Science, and it seems to consist mostly of the French School of Epistemology (which stresses the importance of history). I think, a section on Continental Philosophy of Science should at least further mention the Vienna Circle and Logical Empirism, which it founded, given the great importance of this school in the last century, which was certainly not limited to continental Europe only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.10.185 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Vienna Circle and Logical Empiricism represented movements within the analytic tradition of philosophy. They are obviously NOT part of the continental tradition of philosophy. Read the article on analytic and continental philosophy, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.124.169.126 (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science

There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sci-phi

I have reverted the edit suggesting that this is what POS is also know as. From what I can tell, Pugliucci (as cited) actually uses the abbreviation for what he calls "science-philosophy" or even "the science-philosophy borderlands, sometimes unofficially referred to as sci-phi". In any case, one author's idea would not justify adding to the lead in this way. Why not "also known as POS"? Myrvin (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific realism and instrumentalism

The following from the "Scientific realism and instrumentalism" section:

"More radical antirealists, like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, have argued that scientific theories do not even succeed at this goal, and that later, more accurate scientific theories are not "typically approximately true" as Popper contended."

While I can't say with any certainty for Kuhn, Feyerabend's position is not antirealism; it is epistemological anarchism. Whoever wrote the above may have read Feyerabend arguing against realism in specific cases in order to show that realism is not a universal guarantor of methodological success. The same could be said for instrumentalism or any other methodological "ism".

While the whole paragraph could be dissected and criticised, perhaps it is enough to suggest that it has been written by someone with only a superficial understanding of Kuhn and Feyerabend's work. I will remove it. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also removed the Kuhn and Feyerabend citations at the end of this sentence and replaced with a citation needed template,

"Some antirealists attempt to explain the success of scientific theories without reference to truth while others deny that our current scientific theories are successful at all.[citation needed]"

For anyone who wishes to replace the citations, please include page numbers. My own conviction is that that there is nothing in the referenced works to suggest that either author denies "that out current scientific theories are successful at all". --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Assumptions and foundations

The first sentence of the article says: The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. I've read through the article and find lots about methods and imnplications of science, but I don't see anything about assumptions and foundations. Did I miss something? Luxorlover (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

History section

This article needs a history section. For example, before Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, it was assumed that scientific theories could be proved (in the contemporary sense of the word, not the older sense which means simply "test.") Popper introduced (among other things) the idea that a scientific theory can be falsified but not verified. Then came Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which was partly a response to Popper and (among other things) replaced "falsifiable" with "testable." Even though Popper and Kuhn represent major milestones in PoS, their work represents merely two of many. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is about twice as long as the recommended length for Wikipedia articles. Just perusing it, I see a lot of undisciplined writing. For example, the section on Ockham's razor goes on and on, even though at the top it points to the article Occam's razor. That section alone could be boiled down to one or two paragraphs of reasonable length. Obviously we don't want people editing sections they don't understand, but if you can find a section that is within your bailiwick, please help by taking pruning shears in hand and doing a bit of trimming. Excessively long articles are off-putting and discourage people from reading them. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ockham's razor is a bit windy, but at a quarter less than Science, it's hardly “twice as long” as it should be. Expansion is welcome.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"more importantly" vs. "more important"

To editor Myrvin: According to the top Google results I clicked on, it is incorrect to begin a sentence with "More importantly..." [2][3][4] It is the same grammatical issue with saying "I feel badly" when talking about one's emotions (as opposed to the insensitivity of skin to touch). If you have more reliable sources than those I provided, let 'em fly. If none, I'll switch it back at some point. -Jordgette [talk] 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your example is not a sentence modifier. "More importantly," or "Importantly," is an adverb(ial phrase) that modifies the following sentence. It's sometimes called a 'sentence adverb(ial)' or Disjunct (linguistics) (There are many more in that article). Read this [5] and [6] and [7] and [8] and this [9]. No-one would write "Significant, she was brighter than me", but Significantly, ...." Nor "Foolish, I made the same mistake again" but "Foolishly, ....". Myrvin (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED has:

importantly 1. In an important manner or degree; weightily, momentously.

Now esp. common as a kind of sentence adverb preceded by more or most; in some contexts it is interchangeable with important and so has the function of a quasi-adj. Cf. important adj.

1938 C. Williams He came down from Heaven ii. 22 The main point is‥the first outrage against pietas, and (more importantly) the first imagined proclamation of pietas from the heavens.

1941 Jrnl. Royal Aeronaut. Soc. 45 309 Just as importantly, the chart is of extreme value in forming any decisions as to the desirability of modifying‥the track.

1962 H. R. Williamson Day Shakespeare Died viii. 88 More importantly, Shakespeare, though using Holinshed as his main source, occasionally used Hall as the direct source of various passages.

...: 1969 Nature 1 Nov. 477/1 Most importantly, when the particles of the pair are brought together, they annihilate.

1972 Nature 31 Mar. 200/2 And, most importantly with an internal lipid bilayer, a membrane.

1972 Times 12 Apr. 16/5 Perhaps more importantly, income not applied to exclusively charitable purposes is not exempt from taxation.

1972 Daily Tel. 31 Oct. 14/6 But, importantly in this case, there is a well-built girl attendant who is chased about the stage by someone bearing a striking resemblance to the wild-eyed non-speaking member of the Marx Brothers team.

1972 Times Higher Educ. Suppl. 17 Nov., It will of course be recognized as a great modern dictionary, as we shall see presently; but more importantly,‥for all the indications it gives of having registered the full impact of our so-called permissive age, is the way it preserves certain antique myths.

Myrvin (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions of "importantly" are not useful for this discussion, nor are examples where published sentences have begun "More importantly." The fact that many people have made this mistake doesn't make it less of a mistake. What I was asking for was a resource that discusses which phrase is more correct.

Here is the exact entry in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, Revised and Expanded Edition:

important(ly) Avoid this construction: He is tall. More importantly, he is young. Make it more important. The phrase includes an implied what is (What is more important, he is young). This important is an adjective modifying what.

If some grammarians agree with your position, you should be able to find them. But I suspect you won't, as this is a common mistake that has now become quasi-accepted, similar to "I could care less" and "I want to lay down." -Jordgette [talk] 00:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the correct grammatical way to say it, it doesn't seem to me to be encyclopedic tone. We should be stating objective facts, not evaluating on the reader's behalf what is more important. A lot of the article's use of "important" at the moment smacks of WP:PEACOCK language. Rather than saying a work is "important", which it's not Wikipedia's place to do, we should offer facts about works or theories that explain why someone might consider them important. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

J, I wondered if this is a US versus UK thing. Do you have British grammarians who agree with you? If you take the trouble to read the Merriam-Webster ref I gave, you will see that there is disagreement here. The M-W does say "American commentators seem to object to the adverb and recommend the adjective."[10] However, they continue: "You can then use either the adjective or the adverb; both are defensible gramatically and both are in respectable use." Even in the US, do we believe a newspaper or the good people of M-W? Furthermore, the American Heritage guide to contemporary usage and style says: "both forms are widely used, and there is no obvious reason to prefer one or the other."[11] Also, if you're looking for age of use as an arbiter of 'wrong', you will see that the M-W says that the adverb use is older.

I have cited the OED and the CUP, and they are the best UK gramarians around. I have come across those who deny the usefulness of dictionaries before. It seems very odd. Good dictionary publishers/writers are also grammarians. The important part of the OED ref is the phrase "Now esp. common as a kind of sentence adverb preceded by more or most" - a grammatical point. Your position is also very strict. It smacks of Victorian schoolmasters and the split infinitive etc.. To my mind, if just about everyone uses a formulation, then it is difficult to say that it is 'wrong'. Your examples, once again, are nothing like the case in point.

Further to your challenge: I suspect the British grammarians find the usage so natural and commonplace as to think it doesn't need comment. However, The Oxford dictionary of English grammar uses it twice in its text. [12]. The Cambridge A student's introduction to English grammar uses it lots of times. [13]. Partrige in Usage and Abusage, 1973, used it once. [14]; and also in The World of Words [15]; and three times in English: a course for human beings.[16]

MP I take your point. Myrvin (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If MW says both are defensible grammatically, that's good enough for me. -Jordgette [talk] 20:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, it was an interesting discussion; and I have added the ideas to the Disjunct (linguistics) article. Myrvin (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)