Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: John Wilkins <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
Larry Moran wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:37:45 -0400 (EDT),
> Robert Karl Stonjek <rstonjek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....
>>Please let me know - my friend, a Philosopher of Science, thinks that
>>Philosophy of Science has an impact on scientific thinking, perhaps it does.
>
>
> Your friend is correct. The more important question is whether scientists
> have an impact on philosophers! :-)
>
Outside of physics, you mean? We try hard to avoid it. That nasty biology
hurts our headses.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: Phil Roberts, Jr.
- Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- References:
- Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: Robert Karl Stonjek
- Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: Larry Moran
- Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Prev by Date: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Next by Date: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Previous by thread: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Next by thread: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
