|
f33d4ward (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Can we measure everything? Is there anything we cannot measure? Can we be fully cognizant of that which we seek to examine?
xxPHOENIX80xx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Very, very interesting.
LordImmolation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Ah the TTC - Philosophy of Science, huh? He really bashes social constructionist views in alot in the series. He raises some interesting points, however and he is very easy to listen to.
jannisarrie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
tendency to tolerate disagreement that leads to relativism is highh in continental tradition that concerns with meaning. It's a tradition that stemmed out from introvert, artistic n literary style of philosophising. If i produce excatly the same poem like my friend does in poetry class then i'll be charged with plagiarism.But i can produce the same answer in mathematics. So arts demand us to be unique. In that sense it's fine to celebrate diferrences.
jannisarrie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hey wagner...have u read D.C Phillip's Social Scientists' Bestiary. I think it's a good neo-popperian response to hermeneutcists n constructivists claims on science.
ContraWagner (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I am not defending science. I am defending scientific realism. The pragmatic virtues I haven't specified are used to judge which scientific theory is better.
regalkidney (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
(by the way, this is in response to ContraWagner's written comments on the right)
regalkidney (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
As for your pragmatic defense of science, this easily slips into relativism. Are the effects of science really beneficial for us, as you claim? Clearly, this is a question of value, and different cultures have different values. Perhaps modern scientific values have proven themselves to be more powerful than ancient Navajo values. But does that really make these values better? ...especially when we consider that scientific values have, for example, paved the way for global ecological disaster?
regalkidney (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It seems like you're trying to move from a pragmatic defense of science to scientific realism. To make this move, you'd probably need a premise like this one: "the theories and models which are most beneficial for us correspond more or less to the actual structure of reality." That sounds plausible enough, but what evidence do we really have for it? To check the claim, you would need an independent method of accessing reality in itself, which we simply don't have.
oweja (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Science deserves our respect!" Absolutely. While I think science is still a relative infant, it is a sturdy young fellow. That doesn't really mean I think science is male. Yet, if deconstructive discourses help to identify new directions that questions about a subject can take, methodologies to collect the data, and analytical process can surely be designed. And if there are questions about the strength of all these part, then let them be asked and stronger designs be produced. |
