Talk:Commensurability (philosophy of science)
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article contains a translation of Inconmensurabilidad (filosofía) from es.wikipedia.|
Commensurability is a general topic
The last move, from Commensurability to Commensurability (philosophy of science), doesn't seem right. Commensurability is not just a matter of the philosophy of science, as the article itself says, and there is no general article on Commensurability.
This page should talk about the argument against incommensurability in Davidson's On the very idea of a Conceptual Scheme. (I'll have a go when time permits...) Banno 21:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't it also discuss Quine's concept of incommensurability? (Of languages, I believe.) I haven't actually read his work, but I know that he wrote on the subject and that the word is often associated with him. — Adam Conover † 16:59, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. I will add Quine. This article is rather poor (Feyerabend's previous entry was disingenuous and simply incorrect) and you can thus expect some edits and additions shortly. --Valve 02:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I dont know how to change this trivial fact, but the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article mentions two meetings "In 1952, Feyerabend presented his ideas on scientific change to Popper's LSE seminar and to a gathering of illustrious Wittgensteinians (Elizabeth Anscombe, Peter Geach, H.L.A.Hart and Georg Henrik von Wright) in Anscombe's Oxford flat." It is unlikely that Popper's seminar was held in an Oxford flat. But the article has the people mentioned at Popper's seminar
Contradiction between this page and main Feyerabend page
This page states,
"The philosophy of Paul Feyerabend was also based on the idea of incommensurability to a large extent."
The main Feyerabend page states,
"Incommensurability did not concern Feyerabend greatly, because he believed that even when theories are commensurable (i.e. can be compared), the outcome of the comparison should not necessarily rule out either theory. To rephrase: when theories are incommensurable, they cannot rule each other out, and when theories are commensurable, they cannot rule each other out. Assessments of (in)commensurability, therefore, don't have much effect in Feyerabend's system, and can be more or less passed over in silence."
These two seem to radically contradict each other. This page says Feyerabend's philosophy was based on incommensurability, while his own page says it doesn't have much effect in his philosophy, and that it can be ignored in relation to the rest of his ideas.
Seems like some correction or clarification is in order.
188.8.131.52 03:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find the direct quotation that you attribute to this page so am unable to clarify or correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanish Fig (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure the recent section on the early history of the concept of incommensurability is relevant... As far as I can tell, Bacon is using the word "incommensurable" in reference to two theories that are in use and conflict with one another, as contrasted with their replacement: a single theory that is not in conflict with itself. As for "incommensurability" in mathematics, two numbers are "incommensurable" if the ratio of the two numbers cannot be expressed as a rational number (see Commensurability (mathematics)). In the first instance, 'incommensurable' is used in its non-technical sense. In the second, it is used in a technical sense that is different than the sense it has in the philosophy of science. Both instances are irrelevant to this article. The edits are obviously in good faith but I think we should undo them.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Introduction of Karl Popper is incomplete.
The first time Karl Popper is mentioned it is by using his last name as an adjective. ( ... Popperian.) To someone outside the field, such as myself, it is confusing. I realize that it might require more than a little rewriting, but hopefully it would be worth the effort. Soulfulpsy (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)