= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SanguineEmpiricist 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 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.