Science and relativism

What Hacker News says

1. raincomApr 2018
   Since R.M. Hare's "Language of Morals" is on the list, I recommend Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue" should be on the list for any one who want to study Moral Philosophy today.

   Along with Popper and Kuhn's works on that list, read Larry Laudan's "Progress and its problems" and "Science and Relativism: some key controversies in the philosophy of science". This goes under Philosophy of Sciences.

   thread
2. ambler0Oct 2013
   I agree with you that Kuhn is still worth reading, but perhaps a better intro to Philosophy of Science can be found in Laudan's "Science and Relativism". He is not dismissive of Kuhnian-style relativism, but he is critical of it and helps you see how it fits into the larger debate.

   At least that's what I remember. It's been a while since college :/

   http://www.amazon.com/Science-Relativism-Controversies-Philo...

   thread
3. igraviousApr 2018
   > Since R.M. Hare's "Language of Morals" is on the list, I recommend Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue" should be on the list for any one who want to study Moral Philosophy today.

   “After Virtue” is a legit recommendation.

   > Along with Popper and Kuhn's works on that list, read Larry Laudan's "Progress and its problems" and "Science and Relativism: some key controversies in the philosophy of science". This goes under Philosophy of Sciences.

   I demur. Comparing two giants of the Philosophy of Science (nb: not plural) to a relative unknown. I would recommend instead “Against Method” (1975) by Paul Feyerabend or “The Sleepwalkers” (1959) by Arthur Koestler.

   Show morethread
4. raincomOct 2015
   I have not heard anyone from Philosphy of sciences saying "all scientific explanations are fundamentally ad hoc". In fact, Adolf Grunbaum studied the nature of Adhoc explanations. Even Imre Lakatos claimed that prima facie ad hoc (those from the protective belt) can end up being non ad hoc.

   What I have in my mind when I said mathematical models provide ad hoc suport is this. Today, it is consensus in the philosphy of sciences that there are two kinds of confirmation of a theory: confirming instance vs positive instance. Mathematical models generate "positive instances". A non-adhoc hypothesis generates confirming instances, a special type of positive instances. For more, pp. 61-62, Larry Laudan's "Science and Relativism: some key controversies in the philosophy of science.

   Lets look at a hypothesis that says "All swans are white". One keeps on doing field work, saying that 1001th swan is white, 1002th swan is white, etc. All these field reports are "positive" instances. Such field reports don't add much.

   Show morethread