-I am aware of this outdated Normative approach — Nickolasgaspar
science's success — Nickolasgaspar
Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs — Nickolasgaspar
For goodness shake, he denies Objectivism, one of the major breakthroughs of Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar
-As I said before I am aware of this critique based on Normative guidelines, but their authors have failed to explain the run away success of science. — Nickolasgaspar
- you do your best mate.!Factually AND "fractally"! Damn...guess we all can't pretend to be geniuses. — Xtrix
oh this is your goal.......ok, that explains your outdated beliefs.You're right to bow out of this conversation with your tail between your legs. — Xtrix
Normative critique has failed to explain the epistemic success of science and Descriptive Science explains why Normative "rules" offer nothing of value in our methodologies and standards of evidence. — Nickolasgaspar
What works of theirs are you referring? Care to cite some passages? Because you've definitely read them, of course.
— Xtrix
I am sure that I have posted you links ...don't you read my comments or are you preoccupied preparing your apologetic? — Nickolasgaspar
Paul Hoyningen — Nickolasgaspar
So you don't know what normative means, either. Great...
Normative refers to norms or ethics. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything to do with Kuhn. What I'm talking about is ontology. Look it up. — Xtrix
-You are confusing commercial applications with the knowledge that enables technical applications......Yes, certainly what's impressive about science is its "success." That's definitely not a value judgment, I suppose. Having an iPhone must be an "Objective good." lol — Xtrix
-Sorry mate but you are unable to point to a critique by those fellows that will be left standing after I have some time with it.Imagine being so full of yourself that you can't even admit that you don't have the slightest clue what these authors' theses were. — Xtrix
-lol...seriously...you don't know how google search works? the first in random...here you are.Don't make me work for your education..its your responsibility mate.Descriptive Science" is meaningless as well. Do you mean descriptive RESEARCH? — Xtrix
You haven't posted a single link or passage about Hoyningen's critique on Kuhn or others....You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited. — Xtrix
You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited — Xtrix
-"Ayn Rand dogmatists are funny."
-Chronicling is blocking your ability to learn or think.... — Nickolasgaspar
So you don't know what normative means, either. Great...
Normative refers to norms or ethics. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything to do with Kuhn. What I'm talking about is ontology. Look it up.
— Xtrix
-You do know that you can google a phrase you ignore...before removing any doubt for your ignorance from your interlocutor....right?
You can use your internet connection to educate yourself...its not just for social media and spicy pictures..... — Nickolasgaspar
Yes, certainly what's impressive about science is its "success." That's definitely not a value judgment, I suppose. Having an iPhone must be an "Objective good." lol
— Xtrix
-You are confusing commercial applications with the knowledge that enables technical applications...... — Nickolasgaspar
understand what is responsible for science's success not what science should do in order for to meet specific criteria.
Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs by using a technology designed to manipulate hidden properties of matter.... — Nickolasgaspar
-Sorry mate but you are unable to point to a critique by those fellows that will be left standing after I have some time with it. — Nickolasgaspar
You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited.
— Xtrix
You haven't posted a single link or passage about Hoyningen's critique on Kuhn or others.... — Nickolasgaspar
Would a astronomer have any reason to argue against disprove frameworks about the solar system? lol
Ok we get it, you happen to learn about Kuhn's ideas and you thought that its a great excuse to reject objectivity and facts... — Nickolasgaspar
Says the Ayn Rand follower. lol. — Xtrix
lol...I see you skipped quoting the link I provided you on Normative and Descriptive Science!So you don't know what normative means. Got it. — Xtrix
-Yes and you understand that an ad absurdum about iphones doesn't change the fact that technical applications of knowledge enables commercial applications. Iphones is not the proof that Knowledge produced by Science has an objective value. Any company can use science's knowledge on matter to produce goods...not just apple. Commercial application is the symptom of objectivity in scientific knowledge...not the cause or proof....You realize I can scroll back and see what you said, right? Like:
understand what is responsible for science's success not what science should do in order for to meet specific criteria.
Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs by using a technology designed to manipulate hidden properties of matter.... — Xtrix
Good God you're embarrassing. — Xtrix
-I don't find any claim relevant or capable to challenge the ability of science to feed an objective epistemology.Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to?
I won't hold my breath for an answer, since you've never read a word of their work. But I realize your ego won't allow you to admit this. And say "normative critique" and wave your hands. Typical of Ayn Rand enthusiasts. — Xtrix
lol ..ok childish arguments. Dude science has a work to show something that its critics can not! Whether you agree or not on which principles are responsible for science's epistemic success...its your job to argue in favor or against them...not mine.Because I haven't once claimed, like you have with the authors mentioned, to be familiar with Hoyningen. — Xtrix
I reject their objections because science has prove that they are irrelevant to its methods abilities to provide descriptive generalizations....again you need to learn how the burden of proof works.You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see. — Xtrix
So Kuhn's work -- which you've never read and have no clue about -- is equivalent to a geocentric framework. — Xtrix
-again its your job to point out which of Kuhn's arguments qualify, in your opinion,as the best challenge against the epistemic and instrumental value of science mate...you need to do the hard work here.I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is? — Xtrix
-and how can you objectively prove this belief of yours? Does my reluctance to not waste time on factually wrong critique proves that I am not familiar with it? Fallacies are not your strong point...right?Well you claim to be familiar with them -- because you're a liar. So it's only right to ask for what exactly you find wrong with their arguments. — Xtrix
-Argument from false authority fallacy since they argue in favor of a Normative approach in science... plus the facts and critique render their objections irrelevant. Science delivers independently of what Philosophers what to believe.Again, the authors were: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Joseph Rouse. Keep pretending to be an expert on things you have no clue about. Your bullshit doesn't work here, and can be smelled a mile away. — Xtrix
I guess you don't really grasp the concepts."Bohr's analysis is wrong...he's way too normative!" See? How easy it is! Brilliant. — Xtrix
Given the word philosophy is in the very title of this forum, it seems like a fairly straightforward question, "What is philosophy?"
The term itself, as we know, means "love of wisdom" from the Greek. But that doesn't help much until we know what "wisdom" means.
Interested in hearing various interpretations. — Xtrix
Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to? — Xtrix
You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see.
— Xtrix
I reject their objections — Nickolasgaspar
I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is?
— Xtrix
-again its your job to point out which of Kuhn's arguments qualify, — Nickolasgaspar
you need to do the hard work here. — Nickolasgaspar
there are ideas of his that agree with (i.e.why scientific knowledge doesn't share characteristics of revolution) — Nickolasgaspar
Does my reluctance to not waste time on factually wrong critique proves that I am not familiar with it? — Nickolasgaspar
Nick isn't having a conversation. He is running a PR campaign. — Yohan
Garrett Travers was more fun — Joshs
Science is, of course, NOT philosophy. It is pre-philosophical. — Constance
Sorry, I don’t interact seriously with liars. — Xtrix
This depends on whether we want to define them as entirely different. I look at it as a spectrum. The difference between natural philosophy and science isn’t always clear.
Science rests — like everything else — on an ontology (namely, naturalism/materialism). Ontology is usually considered philosophy. The idea of “nature,” causality, time, and being all have philosophical underpinnings in science. — Xtrix
Ah yes, the ontology of knitting. — Constance
But philosophy is not an empirical approach. — Constance
True— not now, anyway. But remember, science comes out of natural philosophy, and is not without its ontological foundations. Once we acknowledge that, clear demarcations begin to get blurred. — Xtrix
Screw it, I'll go radical: In general the tradition of philosophy is to be the Mother of the sciences, but current philosophy is, by and large, the study of mysteries.
We still are debating a huge swath of traditional questions in which we have not managed to advance one iota. What is the self, how can matter think, what is mind, what's the good, is there only one thing in the universe, do we have free will, etc.
Sometimes we get lucky and manage to bring some of the classic philosophical questions into the arena of empirical research, and then we get a science. — Manuel
I think the topics I listed are a mystery and are studied (or discussed and elaborated) and we still debate them, with no resolution on the horizon.
Religion is very complex and I would probably say that it's even impoverished by the Western entanglement with Christianity, which, compared to other religions, is pretty boring. At least to me.
But existence can be looked at through many lenses, not limited to religion. — Manuel
What is the self, how can matter think, what is mind, what's the good, is there only one thing in the universe, do we have free will, etc. — Manuel
Science did not so much "come out of natural philosophy" as it took what was "natural" and categorized it. — Constance
What is left is religion: the narrative driven unobservable world that defies categorical thinking. It is the "openness" of our existence in all knowledge claims. — Constance
current philosophy is, by and large, the study of mysteries. — Manuel
Sometimes we get lucky and manage to bring some of the classic philosophical questions into the arena of empirical research, and then we get a science. — Manuel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.