= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on What subjects are important to rationality, but not covered in Less Wrong? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (66)
I'd like to see more discussion of the problems with the scientific approach. It would show that LW is up to speed with current developments , rather than laboriously reinventing logical positivism. The approach up to now has been more about cheerleading.
I think Curt Doolittle's advancements in the area are worth looking at and he responds to comments.
To be clear , I don't particularly need critique of naturalism for my own purposes.
Doolittle seems to write mostly about politics. He isnt a notable philosopher, scientist, or philosopher of science.
I think he has made significant advancements himself and would encourage a further look at the very least.
Coold young least point me to where he deals with science?
I can't find any evidence of him saying anything about science, and I am beginning to think you are some kind of troll.
??? It's just a synthesis of things I haven't been able to post much because I found out I had sleep apnea and have been very very tired and just fixed it thanks to Romeo & Yvain.
If you want regular philosophy of science contributions just read Kyburg's "Science and Reason" or any of Isaac Levi's corpus, there's also Hintikka & Hendricks.
Many people I've shown Curt's work to consider the moral constraints argument to science relatively profound among other things.
In regular philosophy of science if you read only one either Hendrick's introduction to Formal Epistemology or Kyburg's Science and Reason, and if you want a relatively strong probabilistic introduction to formal epistemology Levi's "Enterprise of Knowledge" is pretty great.
For the question you asked "Problems with scientific approach", the relevance of scientific knowledge to decision making is pretty much all of Levi's ballgame.
What are the current developments? Is anything dominant now? Wiki claims Logical Positivism was dominant until 1960.
Also do the current developments matter? Would any of the hard sciences do things differently? Did the change affect the soft sciences?
There's nothing as self confident as L.P. now, Having adopted naturalist, many philosophers are finding plenty of problems with it. There's a lot of interest in Kripkean theory, but it's not really a movement,
Mainstream philosophy hasn't affected how science Iis done. Neither has LessWrongian philosophy. Both are aimed at clarifying and promoting the scientific approach. In neither case is it clear why affecting science iwould be a necessary or expected upshot. LessWrongians seem to think that clarifying and promoting science is important enough in itself. You can only fail at what you are trying to do, or what you can reasonably be expected to do.