Scientific Conclusions

[_marg]

And by the way EA, this village idiot atheist, walking talking strawman, that doesn't know what she's talking about when she enters posts, is not completely naïve, or ignorant of what science entails, having listened a few years ago to some relevant courses. So while I'm fully aware that listening to a course is not the same thing as studying for a course and writing exams on it and that my memory fades with time on details, I'm not completely naïve. And I do recognize if I wanted to discuss details of phil of science with you I would review. Certainly the number of hours in these courses which cover what science entails in great detail would take pages and pages of posts. Which is why I find your nitpicking because I didn't go into detail rather petty minded giving me the impression your intent is attack as opposed to discussion.

These courses among others I've listened to, are relevant to this discussion and I think entitles me to enter this thread.




Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1235

Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1120

Science in the 20th Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1220

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Marg (You should know that you are my 187th favorite atheist on the MDB. Not bad when you consider that there are over 8,000 MDB atheists) :)

These courses among others I've listened to, are relevant to this discussion and I think entitles me to enter this thread.




Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1235

Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1120

Science in the 20th Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1220

Yes, considering your above completed courses, you have my blessing to enter (and post in) this thread.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_marg]

Thanks ceeboo... then I'm meeting my goal.

[_Aristotle Smith]

These courses among others I've listened to, are relevant to this discussion and I think entitles me to enter this thread.




Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1235

Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1120

Science in the 20th Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey

Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman, Ph.D., Boston University,
Lehigh University http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=1220

Actually, this is the one that you needed to listen to for this thread:

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=4100

Yes, I've listened to it.

[_marg]

Actually, this is the one that you needed to listen to for this thread:

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=4100

Yes, I've listened to it.

Yes I noticed that one today when getting the links. And when it's on sale I'll get it. But actually the first course I listed "What scientists know and how they know it" is essentially a phil of science course absent philosophical language. And I'm not sure a pure philosophy of science course would be as good. It truly is an excellent course...which I think is presented more from a scientifically minded perspective rather from a perspective with interest in promotion of philosophy in particular philosophical terms.

[_MrStakhanovite]

It's amazing that a course taught by a Philosopher trained at Boston College lecutring about such figures from Plato, to Kuhn and Paul Feyerbend avoids any use of philosophical language.

[_beefcalf]

Ok Stak,

Without needing to tell you this, because this is what you have been telling me, I am completely ignorant of the entire field of Philosophy of Science. This conversation has been an eye-opener for me. But I have zero problem with the idea that the philosophy of science undergirds the entire system of scientific inquiry. I have just a couple of observations:

My guess is that Michael Schumacher and Kimi Raikkonen probably don't know very much about designing and building carbon fiber aerodynamic wings and the forging of steel crankshafts. Yet they can both drive the hell out of car. They would get absolutely nowhere in Formula One if someone on their team didn't know enough about engineering a race car, but they don't have to know anything about how the car is built in order to win a championship race.

Hey, maybe I'm the driver of an ambulance, trying to use my mad skillz at driving to get accident victims to the hospital as quick as possible. The fact that I couldn't design and build a limited-slip differential doesn't make me a crappy driver.

Your apparent belief that one cannot practice good science without understanding the philosophy of science is flat-out unsupportable. Lots of very valuable science is done without the necessity of having a firm grasp on the underlying philosophy.

I don't know if the concept of the double-blind study came from the realm of Philosophy of Science, but whether or not it did does not diminish its usefulness in achieving real progress in many areas of medical research. And the researchers who employ double-blind testing do not need to understand any underlying philosophy to make excellent use of the method.

Last thing: I don't know how many total hours of study and effort one must undertake in order to receive a degree in philosophy, but I'm guessing its in the thousands. So your irritation that I hadn't picked up the general idea in three or four of your posts, of a couple of hundred words apiece, says more about you than about me.

(wife-unit is calling for me... gotta go.)

[_MrStakhanovite]

Your apparent belief that one cannot practice good science without understanding the philosophy of science is flat-out unsupportable. Lots of very valuable science is done without the necessity of having a firm grasp on the underlying philosophy.

That is really neat idea...it sounds kinda fam....

Problems in the Philosophy of Science may grind Philosophy of Science to a halt, but as you point out they don't grind science to a halt, and I am not certain that it is enough to say that that is because "there is work to be done and science has utility", as if scientists were somehow at fault in not being sophisticated or observant enough to realize that We Have A Problem Here, Houston

Has nothing to do with sophistication, but people can only know so much. Your typical field Biologist won’t be able to speak much outside their field, much less in another discipline. There is only so much a person can take on. You don’t need to know just what exactly is going on inside a computer to get a lot of use out of it.

Oh.


By 'apparent', did you mean ‘my complete inability to parse an argument’?

[_beefcalf]

Hadn't seen that exchange... thanks.

Alrighty then,

So, if I want to continue to extoll the high virtues of rational thought and science, how best do I do so whilst minimizing my chances of stepping outside my proper place? Embark on a degree program, or will the wikipedia PhilSci entry do ok for us beginners? I could always dust off Russell's History of Western Philosophy that has been weighing down my bookshelf these last several years, but that doesn't seem to be the right place to start.

by the way: the spot where you can contribute your specific observations about my uncharitable behavior towards theists remains available, should you decide to contribute.