muso:
Quote:Why would you even bother? What's the point?
To show that your take on science and philosophy is not completely hollow. If you can't come up with an alternative, at least try to come up with a rational criticism.
Quote:Put it this way - Could philosophers have come up with Quantum physics
They did come up with quantum physics.
Quote:The major advances in science have been from outside the box.
All rejection of the dominant paradigm comes from outside the box - by definition. This is the sort of insight philosophy yields.
Quote:As far as not understanding it - what I do understand is that there are various conflicting assertions, none of which in any way reflect what usually goes on in scientific research.
Can you explain how Kuhn's assertions differ from the reality of scientific research? As I understand it, his views have become the commonly accepted view precisely because they not only reflect the reality of scientific research, but provide great insight into it.
Quote:Even if they did, scientific practices are dynamic.
And Kuhn captures this dynamism.
Quote:They don't fit into any neat box.
Kuhn does not put them in a neat box.
Quote:In research you do what you have to do. You work with whatever information or clues are available to you.
Instead of starting from scratch, you should understand what has already been proposed first, then decide whether you need to reinvent the wheel.
Quote:Nothing is as cut and dried as 'falsifiable' or 'unfalsifiable'.
In my experience making this distinction yields great insight into the process of acquiring new knowledge. Insight is not the same thing as cutting and drying things, but it is valuable.
Quote:Philosophy of science is just a weapon used by certain groups with an agenda, to attempt to limit its scope.
I suspect you are confusing the entirity of philosophy with a single philosophical argument I have made, and you now try to reject the entire field of philosophy because you have no other way of rejecting my argument. At least, that is the only way I can make any kind of sense of this claim.
Quote:We don't go there - it's not scientific. (Here be monsters). Science must not encroach on that which belongs to God.
Who makes this argument?
Quote:The question is not so much "is it falsifiable?", but "does it work?"
I think Kuhn answers this quite well. But be careful, you might end up sounding like a philosopher of science if you keep asking these questions. Then you would have to reject your own views as worthless.
Amadd
Quote:If religions had their way, very few sciences would have evolved.
Did you know that most of the early ground breaking scientists, from the days when science was a lifestyle choice like music - ie no money in it - were actually religious people? For many of them, their faith motivated them to enquire. The battle between science and religion may sell newspapers, but it does not do justice to reality.
muso:
Quote:- a bit like Windows 7. It might be flawed, but people still use it subject to its limitations. 'Imperfect' is not the same as 'wrong'.
I did not mean to imply that most scientific theories are imperfect. I meant what I said - they are wrong. Just like Newtonian mechanics is wrong. A layman may confuse the error with mere imperfection, but a philosopher of science understands that the currently accepted theory is a completely different way of looking at things, from the ground up.
Quote:Life is imperfect. We are all imperfect, but that doesn't make us invariably wrong.
But muso, we only gain knowledge by realising that we are wrong. The more times we realise we are wrong, the more knowledge we gain. Otherwise you are the bitter 80 year old who hasn't learnt a thing since his eighth birthday, but knows he is right.
Quote:Just remind me again what Philosophy brings to the table.
Perspective. Insight.
Quote:it kind of says something about the lack of rigour in the field
I think it says more about the topic rather than the methods used to study it. If anything, psychologists overcompensate.
Forum
Pages: 
