Talk:Philosophy of science/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Separation of philosophers and physicists for the first time

I'm unclear on how or when this happened, but it seems to have been a process, rather than a discreet event that can be identified with a particular publication. My reading of the source cited does not support the claim that Newton's major work was the first to make this distinction. "The impact of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica on the imaginations of philosophers and physicists, now for the first time separating into two different professions, was so great that it was altogether natural that the work should rapidly become the paradigm of what natural science should look like." The wording of this sentence actually seems to imply that the separation between philosophers and scientists already existed at the time of the Principia's publication. It certainly doesn't say that the Principia was the first to make such a distinction. -hugeTim ^(talk) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the source asserts Newton's importance to philosophy of science (re: use of Newton as illustration in lede). The first paragraph also contains a clear statement that "Philosophiae" was the first time the professions of philosophers and physicists were separated. "In the long history of the philosophy of science, the eighteenth century might well be regarded as Newton's century. The impact of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica on the imaginations of philosophers and physicists, now for the first time separating into two different professions, was so great that it was altogether natural that the work should rapidly become the paradigm of what natural science should look like." [bold added by me]. I propose the reinstatement of Newton's picture to the lead.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 11:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the opening sentence ("In the long history of the philosophy of science, the eighteenth century might well be regarded as Newton's century.") really only asserts his importance to eighteenth century philosophy of science, and that was long before philosophy of science was even regarded as a distinct discipline. That is the primary reason that Newton should not be in the lead. His philosophy, such as it was, is barely even mentioned in recent philosophy of science textbooks, in my experience. Otherwise, "now for the first time separating into two different professions" does not in any clear way attribute the Principia as the cause of that separation--it merely asserts that the two things happened roughly around the same time (which claim is itself not replicated in other reliable sources, which tend to place that separation more in the nineteenth century). If true, you should be able to find another source stating that fact. I was not able to. Instead, I found that the Principia used the term "natural philosopher" to refer to philosopher/scientists, as was the way at the time. -hugeTim ^(talk) 14:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philosophy of science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/popper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Schools of thoughts

in this link, there is a pdf of a book that explained: Realism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Idealism, Materialism, Pragmatism, DeterminismWikisLife (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

2017.04: Introduction, justifying science, some sentences

Hi everyone, I'm back again! :)

However, there remain difficult questions about what precise probability any given evidence justifies putting on the general statement.

I tried hard to comprehend what it's saying, and here's what I got:

for any given evidence, you put it on the general statement, and it will justify a certain probability; and "what precise probability we can get" still remain as difficult questions.

Man, this is almost bullshit... Putting an evidence on a statement, just like putting raw material into a machine, or dropping testing reagents into a substrate? And the outcome of such action will justify a probability, just like in doing actuarial business, words will convert into numbers, and after putting into some formula, will yield a precise probability?

In brief, could anyone kindly help me out this sentence? I hope you have time to look over this, @Hugetim. -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 03:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I understand what the author is trying to say, but he's wrong. Evidence does not justify a probability, it justifies a modification to one's Bayesian prior. Maproom (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of science

The current two paragraphs on the purpose of science are good, but a little too high-flown IMO. Some 45 years ago when I was in upper gradeschool we were taught that the purpose of science was threefold: 1) to describe (observation) 2) to explain (understanding) and 3) to predict (forecast). Science is more than theories and the quest for knowledge (as the current prose puts it in ten-dollar wording), it is a tool for the betterment of humanity, society, and civilization. What I'm speaking of is applied science, aka engineering. I understand this is usually placed in a separate category, but it is still science (in work clothes).Wikkileaker (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Naturalism

Some assumptions in the list associated with Naturalism originate from a paper referenced as "Chen 2009". This appears to be a student paper (see very bottom of cited page). Assumptions 5-7, which solely cite this paper, are neither assumptions nor descriptive of naturalism, and should be removed. IMO all references to this paper should be removed from this article.

Assumption 4, which also cites Chen, should be retained with changes. The second clause should be removed as it is not related to the first clause. (I don't know whether it belongs as a separate assumption.) An authoritative source is needed; perhaps someone can quote Gould or Simpson. This assumption might link to Uniformitarianism / Methodological Assumptions.

The whole section is replicated verbatim at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Naturalism_provides_assumptions_required_for_science; but that article is missing citations for Chen and Heilbron.

JDunning (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Preamble

I read in the Preamble to this page that ″Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy itself." Indeed they do... and I'm wondering if it's worth pointing out the circularity of argument that arises from the practice. After all, if what makes Science 'scientific' is its adherence to foundational logical, ontological and epistemic axioms and principles, then is it not circular to consider modifying those axioms and principles on the basis of results that are drawn from them? Philosophical work in the area of "foundations of physics" seems particularly prone to just this kind of error. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? George963 au (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)