Skip to main content

View Diary: Pique the Geek 20110605: Misconceptions about Science (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They simply weren't talking about the same thing. (0+ / 0-)

    Looking at the sealed jar, Priestly saw de-phlogisticated air, while Lavoisier saw oxygen. They lived in different worlds, as Kuhn liked to say. (This can all be put in less sexy terms, but I'm not teaching a phil sci class here. See Dummet FPL for more. )

    More generally, the lack of a conceptual distinction between what many (still) seem to think are "just plain facts" and theory is central to a good explanation of what really happens in the history of science. (Kuhn or Quine's TDoE suffices for this)

    And this sort of thing is TYPICAL of science in certain periods, not exceptional (Copernicus/Ptolemy, Newton/Einstein, etc.).

    The adherence to dusty, obsolete philosophies of science (whether you know it or not) does no service to knowledge. May as well be an Aristotelian and talk about a rock's "affinity" for the ground.

    "I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD"
    - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 07:05:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I thnk that your personal views (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonga 23

      have overcome your scientific objectivity, but you have not explained your position very clearly, even if you think that this comment did.


      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over, then either I really love you blindly or I am a Republican.

      by Translator on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 07:08:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site