PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Hi guys, I need a title for an essay I need to do on Philosophy of Science (2000 words). Any ideas???

Thanks in advance!

Just a title? How about

"Not Worth Much"

no seriously, help an OGer out...

In order to come up with a title I'd need a synopsis of the essay. That would seriously be a possible title for mine, because my essay would be about how philosophy of science is stagnant and has served its purpose and made up of people who failed in actual science.

Ask the forum member "prof". The guy knows his shit. He's unfortunately usually on the Holyground.

"...philosophy of science is stagnant and has served its purpose and made up of people who failed in actual science."

Is that true? Seriously, I don't know. Who are the philosophers of science today or in the 20th century that failed in science?

Good luck doing an essay on "philosophy of science" in 2000 words or less. Maybe you could narrow it down a little...?

I need an essay title within the reals of HPS such as "is natural science harmful?" etc...

Why is cw so hostile against Ph. of Science?

The more interesting question: Why is cw opposed to philosophy of science but has no problem with speculative pop science books by Hawkings and co.?

That´s an even more interesting question, I agree.

crescentwrench, are you aware that philosophers have higher I.Q's than scientists? Hell I think i'm going to make a post about this....an exercise in self-reassurance that philosophy still has its place among science it will be.And that means? I never said philosophers were dumb. Although I.Q. means about as much as the paper your score is on. You have to be smart to not get lost in all that mental masturbation :)Why is cw opposed to philosophy of science but has no problem with speculative pop science books by Hawkings and co.? They're a fun read. Cosmology is difficult in that it's hard to test hypotheses so speculations and concepts pile up. They're not as able to stay in hard science as many others. However they at least try keep their conjecture in the real world and adhere to the scientific method. Their speculation leads to predictions and explanations in the real world. Philosophy of science was instrumental in laying the framework for that method in logic, falsifiablility etc. But now it's stagnant. It's served its purpose. Just like modern astronomy has its roots in astrology but soon surpassed it. Astrology hasn't contributed anything since. Similarly, I can't think of a significant discovery ever having come from the pursuit of only the philosophy of science.

I´m the first to admit that I´m no expert in this field, I have only read a couple of books on the subject, so I´ll let Dogbert or someone else respond tou your opinions about it.


However I´m a bit curious how much of Philosophy of Science you have studied yourself, since you are so sure it´s worthless. I mean comparing it to Astrology doesn´t give the impression you know so much what you are talking about.

It doesn't? Hmm. I thought the comparison was pretty close.

I have read a little. I didn't get very far because, as I said, I didn't see much use for it anymore. From what I read, it started sounding very much like creationism. Scientists are burdened with having to base their conjecture in the real world and use real experiment to verify. Philosphers of science are under no such constraint. They can say pretty much anything. Scientists build and grow while philosophers keep going in the same circles.

Maybe I was a little harsh. Philosphers of science can contribute by scrutinizing logic and pointing out flaws there. But scientists usually get to it first.

Okay, maybe it's not like astrology. It's like being a movie critic. They understand science, they think about it, they sometimes influence it, but they don't contribute to it.

"Philosophy of science was instrumental in laying the framework for that method in logic, falsifiablility etc. But now it's stagnant."

So you think important philosophy of science ended with Popper? Even the most fanatic Popperians (I´ve met them) don´t think so.

"Philosphers of science are under no such constraint. They can say pretty much anything. Scientists build and grow while philosophers keep going in the same circles."

Well, they are under logical constraints. And if they want to relate their philosophy to real science, they have to do much footwork.

I think the movie critic-analogy is more fitting .

And I think then that the ordinary Scientist, ie the lab-rat can be compared to a minor co-actor of the movie; replacable, doesn´t really know so much about Science (the art of making movies) but still has a minor role in the big picture, without really understanding it´s foundations.

i seriously cannot believe no one will help a brother out???

All I am asking for is for you to give me a title on a subject/theory within HPS...

Nevermind, thanks for all ur help anyways.

Maybe I can help you if you tell me what HPS means.

From Berkeley to Mach: The Relativity of Space and Time

Induction: From Hume to Goodman

The Kuhn/Feyerabend Debate: Who said what?

Tarski and the Warsaw School

Popper: Did he really kill logical positivism?

Carnap and the statistical foundation of Induction

What are Probabilities? Ramsey and the rise of the subjectivist interpretation.

Social science the a priori way: The Methodology of Austrian Economics

The Calculus: Foundations from Leibniz/Newton to Cauchy/Weirstrass

John von Neumann and the Axiomatization of QM

What Space is: The Revolution of Non-Euclidean Geometry

Carnaps criticism of Heidegger

The Resolution of Zenos Paradoxa

Chomsky and the Return of Cartesian Linguistics

Radical Constructivism vs. Old Scepticism

The dispersion of Analytic Philosophy

Moores Proof of the Existence of an External World revisited

Optimality principles in Physics

What happened to the Phlogiston?






Btw: 2000 wors are really not that much space...