Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 02/15/05
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: re:Men on the moon?"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:16:57 -0500
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:37cqi2F59paiaU1@individual.net...
>
>
> >
> > Of course not, Bob. I never suggested otherwise. Empiricism is a
> > philosophy of science,
>
> No. It is a practice based on the principle that facts take precedence
> over hypotheses and theories. In science, Facts Rule, Theory Serves.
Absolutely not. It is a philosophy that states that what is to be given
epistemic precedence is what can be observed through the senses -- to the
best reliability of the senses that is possible -- as opposed to that which
is logically reasoned.
>
>
> > however. Unfortunately it is an incorrect
> > philosophy of science.
>
> Incorrect in what way? Has it been falsified by experiment?
>
> The emprical approach has served science will for over 400 years. It has
> help to produce the computers and the internect networks on which you
spew.
And Newtonian physics would have taken us to the Moon. Does that make it
correct?
Empiricism's strength has always been that it is directly about our
experiences and the appearances presented therein. Its weakness has been
that it can never justify that the appearances -- and the conclusions we
draw from there -- are in any way really the way things are without diving
into circular reasoning or assuming that what we see is the way things
really are.
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: re:Men on the moon?"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|