|
b9c652f
|
Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
|
|
science
humor
inspirational
philosophy-of-science
|
Richard Feynman |
|
d48ec3e
|
"It's daft, locking us up," said Nanny. "I'd have had us killed." "That's because you're basically good," said Magrat. "The good are innocent and create justice. The bad are guilty, which is why they invent mercy."
|
|
good
philosophy-of-science
ethics
sociology
evil
|
Terry Pratchett |
|
6680ea7
|
O progresso da ciencia, tal como uma antiga trilha no deserto, esta juncado pelos descolorados esqueletos de teorias rejeitadas, que um dia pareceram ter vida eterna.
|
|
science
philosophy-of-science
|
Arthur Koestler |
|
abe0c21
|
"It isn't the sort of argument Pointsman relishes either. But he glances sharply at this young anarchist in his red scarf. "Pavlov believed that the ideal, the end we all struggle toward in science, is the true mechanical explanation. He was realistic enough not to expect it in his lifetime. Or in several lifetimes more. But his hope was for a long chain of better and better approximations. His faith ultimately lay in a pure physiological basis for the life of the psyche. No effect without cause, and a clear train of linkages. "It's not my forte, of course," Mexico honestly wishing not to offend the man, but really, "but there's a feeling about that cause-and-effect may have been taken as far as it will go. That for science to carry on at all, it must look for a less narrow, a less . . . sterile set of assumptions. The next great breakthrough may come when we have the courage to junk cause-and-effect entirely, and strike off at some other angle." "No - not 'strike off.' Regress. You're 30 years old, man. There are no 'other angles.' There is only forward - into it - or backward."
|
|
science
mechanism
philosophy-of-science
explanation
|
Thomas Pynchon |
|
9a7397f
|
pg.90 of Philosophy in the Flesh: We are basing our argument on the existence of at least three stable scientific findings--the embodied mind, the cognitive unconscious, and metaphorical thought. Just as the ideas of cells and DNA in biology are stable and not likely to be found to be mistakes, so we believe that there is more than enough converging evidence to establish at least these three results. Ironically, these scientific results challenge the classical philosophical view of scientific realism, a disembodied objective scientific realism that can be characterized by the following three claims: 1. There is a world independent of our understanding of it. 2. We can have stable knowledge of it. 3. Our very concepts and forms of reason are characterized not by our bodies and brains, but by the external world in itself. It follows that scientific truths are not merely truths as we understand them, but absolute truths. Obiviously, we accept (1) and (2) and we believe that (2) applies to the three findings of cognitive science we are discussing on the basis of converging evidence. But those findings themselves contradict (3).
|
|
science
religion-philosophy
thoughts-of-the-mind
western-philosophy
philosophy-of-science
religion-and-philoshophy
philosophy-of-life
thinking
|
George Lakoff |
|
f31ef60
|
...the boundaries separating science, nonscience, and pseudoscience are much fuzzier and more permeable than (or, for that matter, most scientists) would have us believe. There is, in other words, no litmus test.
|
|
fractal
philosophy-of-science
karl-popper
pseudoscience
|
Massimo Pigliucci |