Talk:Philosophy of science/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Theory-dependence of observation

The relativist interpretation of the theory-dependence of observation is shared by few philosophers of science, and by no scientists, which is why an encyclopedia article shouldn't treat it as fact. Also, theory-dependence of observation is itself a controversial issue, though less so than its radical interpretation. I have added a short introductory paragraph to make the reader aware of this.

It is indeed fashionable among literary intellectuals to disparage the objectivity of scientific research. The incommensurability thesis often serves as an argument within this discourse. However, we should aim to keep our own biases in check, rather than impose them on the unwitting reader. The incommensurability thesis is just that: a thesis, and no actual evidence in its favor has been proposed to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artblakey (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But this section isn't about a relativist interpretation -- it's about theory-dependence, which (as I mentioned in my edit summary) is far from controversial and is discussed by much more mainstream philosophers of science than Kuhn (who is himself pretty mainstream these days). Now there may be some literary intelectuals who misinterpret Kuhn as supporting some sort extreme relativism, but that's worth mentioning as an aside (if at all), not in the lead paragraph of a section on theory-dependence of observation. So I'm going to revert again. If you think this relativistic view is worth discussing (and if you have references to support its currency among "literary intellectuals"), please discuss it later in this section or in its own section. As a lead paragraph, it creates the impression that only radical relativists believe that observation is theory-dependent, which is manifestly false. Klausness (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is not to say, by the way, that this section couldn't use some clarification and cleanup (for example, the reference to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is kind of out of left field there). I'll try to do that if I have time... Klausness (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done some rewording. I'm sure it could use more work, but I hope it's a bit better now. Klausness (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of Chemistry

I think this section needs some work. For example, the following question honestly sounds rather silly: "In the philosophy of chemistry, for example, we might ask, given quantum reality at the microcosmic level, and given the enormous distances between electrons and the atomic nucleus, how is it that we are unable to put our hands through walls, as physics might predict?"

In fact, physics does NOT predict that we should be able to put our hands through walls. Although we have discovered that matter consists of tiny particles which, if at rest, would occupy a small percentage of the total space, this is a far cry from saying that these tiny particles should not (as the author imagined it) bump into each other. The answer to the question is much simpler than quantum mechanics. In two words: electromagnetic repulsion. Have you ever put two N's or two S's of magnets together? They repel, right? Well, atoms and molecules occupy space not by filling up a volume with stuff but by electromagnetic fields. So when you bump into something, essentially the spacial resistance you are feeling is electromagnetic repulsion at the atomic level. Of course, MO theory offers a more complex answer, but it is all electromagnetics, which, by the way, is the basis of quantum mechanics at the atomic and molecular level. No one who understands quantum mechanics would ever ask such a question. So physics, in no way whatsoever, predicts such a silly situation as hands being able to go through walls.

Also, in regards to the difference between chemistry and physics, there are some overlaps. Quantum mechanics, for example is definitely both a physics thing and a chemistry thing. Other differences are just semantics and classifications that enable people to do research more easily, but of course there is overlap.

A better type of question that the philosophy of chemistry might ask is what is the relationship between chemical theories and reality. For example, all chemists learn about "electrophilic" and "nucleophilic," and these classifications help chemists to design and predict reaction outcomes, but do they actually represent reality? So many chemicals theories are not based on direct observations but rather models that fit the data well. These models enable us to improve technology, but what is their connection to reality? That is where chemistry and philosophy intersect, not (at least in my opinion) in silly questions that arise from a complete misunderstanding of complex scientific theories like quantum mechanics.

Oh, and you shouldn't write "quantum reality." Quantum mechanics is NOT "reality," it is a theory. It is a darn good theory, but it is not "reality." There is a difference, and I think every philosopher should know the difference. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical model that tries to model and understand reality, but the model is not reality itself. Science is always trying to correct and improve itself and get closer to reality, if that is possible.

Somebody please rewrite this section Rockemet, Stanford (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese philosophy of science

I think this is an interesting topic, but it is poorly written and very short. I know nothing about Traditional Chinese philosophy of science, and after reading this section, I still know nothing about Traditional Chinese philosophy of science. Please, write something here understandable and well-written to satisfy the curiosity of us all :) Rockemet, Stanford (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial Sentence

Ed Poor just changed ""Philosophy of Science" is the study of..."" to '"The philosophy of science" studies the assumptions...

I think maybe the addition of the article is a good idea.

However, which is closer to the literal truth, that PoS is the study of blah blah, or Pos studies blah blah? I don't think PoS actually studies anything, technically, but rather is the study of something.

A good faith edit and some improvement, Ed Poor, but please consider what I've said.Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How about if we figure out what to do with the second sentence and most of them thereafter? To many cooks have spoiled this broth. philosofool (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "too many cooks" aspect. Let's discuss these things.

As for the initial sentence, to my layman's mind there is no significant difference between:

• X is the study of; or,
• X studies

Now, literally, a "body of knowledge" cannot "study" anything. A chemistry book cannot perform experiments, so can we really say that chemistry has discovered something? No, it would have to be a chemist - or maybe a whole bunch of chemists.

All I care about is defining what the philosophy of science is. What field of knowledge is it? What does it cover? What does it entail?

This is important, because this field of study may have certain presuppositions; these should be made explicit. The field may have various schools of thought; these should be identified. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Magisterium

I think that the word Magisterium would be appropriate when talking about the scientific community, in this article, in other articles and in other writings and publications, because of the consensus approach within scientific circles that often mirrors that of closed communities (cf Consensus Patrum). I think that this was Paul Feyerabend's fundamental epistemological criticism on the pretensions of modern science, namely that of constituting a scientific society by using the same kind of social control tools as that of religion. Feyerabend compares Science to a Church or Community and cynically says that the only reason that there have been conflicts between Church and Science is because both of them are structured like Churches.[1] ADM (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Intersubjectivity

“One result of this view is that specialists in the philosophy of science stress the requirement that observations made for the purposes of science be restricted to intersubjective objects. “

Who stresses this? I can’t find anyone stressing it. Googling intersubjective merely gives me its use in psychoanalysis, psychology and communication with infants.

120.153.26.4 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Pepper

Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science

There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sci-phi

I have reverted the edit suggesting that this is what POS is also know as. From what I can tell, Pugliucci (as cited) actually uses the abbreviation for what he calls "science-philosophy" or even "the science-philosophy borderlands, sometimes unofficially referred to as sci-phi". In any case, one author's idea would not justify adding to the lead in this way. Why not "also known as POS"? Myrvin (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific realism and instrumentalism

The following from the "Scientific realism and instrumentalism" section:

"More radical antirealists, like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, have argued that scientific theories do not even succeed at this goal, and that later, more accurate scientific theories are not "typically approximately true" as Popper contended."

While I can't say with any certainty for Kuhn, Feyerabend's position is not antirealism; it is epistemological anarchism. Whoever wrote the above may have read Feyerabend arguing against realism in specific cases in order to show that realism is not a universal guarantor of methodological success. The same could be said for instrumentalism or any other methodological "ism".

While the whole paragraph could be dissected and criticised, perhaps it is enough to suggest that it has been written by someone with only a superficial understanding of Kuhn and Feyerabend's work. I will remove it. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also removed the Kuhn and Feyerabend citations at the end of this sentence and replaced with a citation needed template,

"Some antirealists attempt to explain the success of scientific theories without reference to truth while others deny that our current scientific theories are successful at all.[citation needed]"

For anyone who wishes to replace the citations, please include page numbers. My own conviction is that that there is nothing in the referenced works to suggest that either author denies "that out current scientific theories are successful at all". --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Continental Philosphy of Science

This section in the article suggests that there is something like one closed Continental school of Philosphy of Science, and it seems to consist mostly of the French School of Epistemology (which stresses the importance of history). I think, a section on Continental Philosophy of Science should at least further mention the Vienna Circle and Logical Empirism, which it founded, given the great importance of this school in the last century, which was certainly not limited to continental Europe only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.10.185 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Vienna Circle and Logical Empiricism represented movements within the analytic tradition of philosophy. They are obviously NOT part of the continental tradition of philosophy. Read the article on analytic and continental philosophy, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.124.169.126 (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Assumptions and foundations

The first sentence of the article says: The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. I've read through the article and find lots about methods and imnplications of science, but I don't see anything about assumptions and foundations. Did I miss something? Luxorlover (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

History section

This article needs a history section. For example, before Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, it was assumed that scientific theories could be proved (in the contemporary sense of the word, not the older sense which means simply "test.") Popper introduced (among other things) the idea that a scientific theory can be falsified but not verified. Then came Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which was partly a response to Popper and (among other things) replaced "falsifiable" with "testable." Even though Popper and Kuhn represent major milestones in PoS, their work represents merely two of many. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is about twice as long as the recommended length for Wikipedia articles. Just perusing it, I see a lot of undisciplined writing. For example, the section on Ockham's razor goes on and on, even though at the top it points to the article Occam's razor. That section alone could be boiled down to one or two paragraphs of reasonable length. Obviously we don't want people editing sections they don't understand, but if you can find a section that is within your bailiwick, please help by taking pruning shears in hand and doing a bit of trimming. Excessively long articles are off-putting and discourage people from reading them. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ockham's razor is a bit windy, but at a quarter less than Science, it's hardly “twice as long” as it should be. Expansion is welcome.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"more importantly" vs. "more important"

To editor Myrvin: According to the top Google results I clicked on, it is incorrect to begin a sentence with "More importantly..." [2][3][4] It is the same grammatical issue with saying "I feel badly" when talking about one's emotions (as opposed to the insensitivity of skin to touch). If you have more reliable sources than those I provided, let 'em fly. If none, I'll switch it back at some point. -Jordgette [talk] 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your example is not a sentence modifier. "More importantly," or "Importantly," is an adverb(ial phrase) that modifies the following sentence. It's sometimes called a 'sentence adverb(ial)' or Disjunct (linguistics) (There are many more in that article). Read this [5] and [6] and [7] and [8] and this [9]. No-one would write "Significant, she was brighter than me", but Significantly, ...." Nor "Foolish, I made the same mistake again" but "Foolishly, ....". Myrvin (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED has:

importantly 1. In an important manner or degree; weightily, momentously.

Now esp. common as a kind of sentence adverb preceded by more or most; in some contexts it is interchangeable with important and so has the function of a quasi-adj. Cf. important adj.

1938 C. Williams He came down from Heaven ii. 22 The main point is‥the first outrage against pietas, and (more importantly) the first imagined proclamation of pietas from the heavens.

1941 Jrnl. Royal Aeronaut. Soc. 45 309 Just as importantly, the chart is of extreme value in forming any decisions as to the desirability of modifying‥the track.

1962 H. R. Williamson Day Shakespeare Died viii. 88 More importantly, Shakespeare, though using Holinshed as his main source, occasionally used Hall as the direct source of various passages.

...: 1969 Nature 1 Nov. 477/1 Most importantly, when the particles of the pair are brought together, they annihilate.

1972 Nature 31 Mar. 200/2 And, most importantly with an internal lipid bilayer, a membrane.

1972 Times 12 Apr. 16/5 Perhaps more importantly, income not applied to exclusively charitable purposes is not exempt from taxation.

1972 Daily Tel. 31 Oct. 14/6 But, importantly in this case, there is a well-built girl attendant who is chased about the stage by someone bearing a striking resemblance to the wild-eyed non-speaking member of the Marx Brothers team.

1972 Times Higher Educ. Suppl. 17 Nov., It will of course be recognized as a great modern dictionary, as we shall see presently; but more importantly,‥for all the indications it gives of having registered the full impact of our so-called permissive age, is the way it preserves certain antique myths.

Myrvin (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions of "importantly" are not useful for this discussion, nor are examples where published sentences have begun "More importantly." The fact that many people have made this mistake doesn't make it less of a mistake. What I was asking for was a resource that discusses which phrase is more correct.

Here is the exact entry in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, Revised and Expanded Edition:

important(ly) Avoid this construction: He is tall. More importantly, he is young. Make it more important. The phrase includes an implied what is (What is more important, he is young). This important is an adjective modifying what.

If some grammarians agree with your position, you should be able to find them. But I suspect you won't, as this is a common mistake that has now become quasi-accepted, similar to "I could care less" and "I want to lay down." -Jordgette [talk] 00:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the correct grammatical way to say it, it doesn't seem to me to be encyclopedic tone. We should be stating objective facts, not evaluating on the reader's behalf what is more important. A lot of the article's use of "important" at the moment smacks of WP:PEACOCK language. Rather than saying a work is "important", which it's not Wikipedia's place to do, we should offer facts about works or theories that explain why someone might consider them important. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

J, I wondered if this is a US versus UK thing. Do you have British grammarians who agree with you? If you take the trouble to read the Merriam-Webster ref I gave, you will see that there is disagreement here. The M-W does say "American commentators seem to object to the adverb and recommend the adjective."[10] However, they continue: "You can then use either the adjective or the adverb; both are defensible gramatically and both are in respectable use." Even in the US, do we believe a newspaper or the good people of M-W? Furthermore, the American Heritage guide to contemporary usage and style says: "both forms are widely used, and there is no obvious reason to prefer one or the other."[11] Also, if you're looking for age of use as an arbiter of 'wrong', you will see that the M-W says that the adverb use is older.

I have cited the OED and the CUP, and they are the best UK gramarians around. I have come across those who deny the usefulness of dictionaries before. It seems very odd. Good dictionary publishers/writers are also grammarians. The important part of the OED ref is the phrase "Now esp. common as a kind of sentence adverb preceded by more or most" - a grammatical point. Your position is also very strict. It smacks of Victorian schoolmasters and the split infinitive etc.. To my mind, if just about everyone uses a formulation, then it is difficult to say that it is 'wrong'. Your examples, once again, are nothing like the case in point.

Further to your challenge: I suspect the British grammarians find the usage so natural and commonplace as to think it doesn't need comment. However, The Oxford dictionary of English grammar uses it twice in its text. [12]. The Cambridge A student's introduction to English grammar uses it lots of times. [13]. Partrige in Usage and Abusage, 1973, used it once. [14]; and also in The World of Words [15]; and three times in English: a course for human beings.[16]

MP I take your point. Myrvin (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If MW says both are defensible grammatically, that's good enough for me. -Jordgette [talk] 20:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, it was an interesting discussion; and I have added the ideas to the Disjunct (linguistics) article. Myrvin (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Feyerabend

The short summary of Feyerabend's philosophy ends with the dismissive sentence "However there have been many opponents to his theory." This appears to me an ingenuous method of dispensing quickly with a complex philosophy. If Feyerabend's philosophy is not worth the readers consideration, then the whole section may be removed. If a philosophy is noteworthy, but nonetheless fatally flawed, then the problems are as interesting as the philosophy itself and should be summarised here (with attributions of course). For now I will remove the offending sentence. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The additional sentence is true of anything in the article, and stating the obvious just violates WP:WEIGHT SBHarris 02:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Coherentism and the transit of Venus.

It seems to me that the transit of Venus is an unfortunate choice of example for this section. It was possible to observe the transit in 2012 using a darkened room and a small hole in a blind. Alternatively, a cardboard box with tissue paper over one end and a pin hole in the other. The article states that extensive knowledge of the theory of optics etc. was required. Not so. The main obstacle to observation is the rarity of the occurrence.

John Ashurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.40.17 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I made an adjustment to the sentence. -Jordgette [talk] 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Birds

" Some philosophers (e.g. Craig Callender[1]) have suggested that ornithological knowledge would be of great benefit to birds, were it possible for them to possess it." Very droll. The point is of course that birds can fly and ornithologists can't. Similarly, few (not all, but few, preciously few) philosophers can do science or even have any idea what it is really like to do science, and, irritatingly, are inordinately proud of their impotence.89.168.186.10 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ornithologists can perform behavior experiments, analyze optimum migration routes, and study predation patterns; birds can't. Similarly, few scientists can do philosophy or have any idea what it's like to do philosophy, and many have no clue what aspects and assumptions of their theories are metaphysical or based on unproven historical assumptions and entrenched paradigms. Irritatingly, they tend to be inordinately proud of their impotence in this regard. -Jordgette [talk] 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This article needs fix-up badly

The article is used as the "main" article for a big category and it has problems that put it in a bad light and should be addressed. Whole sections are entirely unreferenced. It has a huge sections of lists of links that aren't integrated into the article. It inappropriately addresses the reader as "we" and has other problems of tone, like continually asking the reader questions. It has a massive "Further reading" section, against wikipedia policies/guidelines. It has way too many "See alsos" that should be reduces/ integrated into the text, according to policies/guidelines. Several of it's external links are already added to over sixty philosophy categories via the template {{Philosophy reference resources}}, overly promoting certain ways of organizing the material, one editor's view. Is this ok with the philosophy people? Star767 (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What philosophy people? There's nobody here but the night cleaning crew, some grad students, folks learning to write, a couple of professionals who have published science papers to peer review now and again, and the usual drop-in squad of volunteers. I did go though the article and kill a few of the overfamiliar uses of "we" (although it didn't bug me as much as it seems to do you). The article does ask a lot of rhetorical questions of the reader, but that's the nature of philosophy. The same happens in both philosophy texts and articles on philosophy in academic philosophical journals. It's not ipso facto out of place. As for the rest of your objections, is that the best you can do? Too many see alsos, too much further reading, and a malorganization promoted by too many templates? Zounds. Erm, I guess the main questions that plague this field got solved, or at least delineated, to your satisfaction, then? SBHarris 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Star767, re: (‎→External links: some of these are the same external links added by template to over sixty categories in Philosophy)... are you saying you removed {{environmental humanities}} because the other nav templates on this page already linked to four of the same articles (out of sixty) or because you don't like an unrelated template on some category pages: {{philosophy reference resources}}?

Please don't make a WP:POINT of WP:OVERTAGGING philosophy articles... it wasn't helpful at Metaphysics either.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why not cleanup the mess, reduce the size of the articles to stubs and stop creating new articles that are put up for deletion? See Process (philosophy). It doesn't take long to remove the unsouced material, the too long "See alsos" and "Further reading" sections and organized the article per MOS. That can usually be done in 30 minutes or less. Remove the spam from the categories and the misleading orange and purple headers that control the categorization process and confuse the reader. I've tried to deal with Gregbard, but he's not open to discussion of any parts of this Philosophy project. He has already decided that it will be organized per the external sources he links to in the categories.

• re {{philosophy reference resources}}, it adds external links spam to category pages and is trancluded to over sixty philosophical articles. This is against Wikipedia:Categorization. He has added many other such templates to category pages - some of the links are dead. At the Village Pump/Policy, he received no support for his practice of adding spam to categories. Why is all this energy spent on this template work and placement, and nothing (you point out) on the articles? Star767 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• re Philosophy of science, it is the main article for a category, yet it's in deplorable shape. Same thing for Metaphysics. These articles are meant to serve as examples for what to put in the categories, yet the content in the categories bears little relationship to the main article. It is chaotic. It seems counterproductive to expend enormous energy to create category templates dictating the sources to use and the articles to read but do nothing to improve the actual articles for readers. See Category:WikiProject Philosophy templates Star767 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We are not particularly interested in a stream of consciousness set of criticisms including personal attacks and little or no content. Combined with your drive by tagging you are well on the way to an ANI report. If you have criticisms of CONTENT then be specific and list your issues in a coherent and reasoned way then other editors can pay attention. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Orinthology

The references to orinthology should be removed from the lead. As amusing as some editors may find them, they are not the type of material that belongs in a serious encyclopedia. I'm sure that if there were something from The Simpsons that referenced philosophy of science, editors wouldn't feel the need to include it in the lead of this article, so why a cute anecdote about birds? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Observation and measurement

In his edit Snowded claims that meAsurement Adds nothing and is unreferenced anyway, please to a discussion of observation and the verification of scientific theory. That observation is followed up by the edit of Jordgette with the observation: Even if your additions are true, they should be properly sourced. The source of this clamor is the apparently unheard view that observations and measurement are connected in science. The apparently flagrantly tendentious material removed by these two editors is the following:

"The question of observation naturally is connected to measurement. On some scales, such measurement is direct, as in the field of surveying. However, as technology develops, observation becomes more and more remote from our immediate experience, and concepts like 'length' require theoretical interpretation to extend them to atomic and sub-atomic distances, and to intergalactic distances. See length measurement for an example. On a deeper level, the separation of measurement from what is measured is a concern. For example, see quantum measurement."

It is my position that the linked WP articles very adequately explain this matter with extensive sources. It is my further position that although anything can be challenged on WP, something so obvious as this is like questioning whether "Mary had a little lamb" is part of a nursery rhyme. I hope that some WP editor will have what it takes to support this deleted material. If not, well, WP philosophy articles are pretty much dead anyway - we can see why. Brews ohare (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You have to show that the text adds materially to the article, and the text has to be sourced. Its also wrong observations of some things can become more remote but its not universal, some is more immediate. You have a ban on any contribution to physics articles and a couple of problems more recently on adding in physics material to philosophy articles on your own say so as to relevance. That is skating on thin ice with your topic ban ----Snowded ^TALK 22:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: It's not my problem any more. Brews ohare (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Objectivity of observations in science... It is vitally important for science that the information about the surrounding world and the objects of study be as accurate and as reliable as possible. For the sake of this, measurements which are the source of this information must be as objective as possible." DVdm deletes my every attempt to show that frame dependent observations in SR theory do not meet the above universally accepted criterion for objective science. Example: all varieties of measurements of Earth from different theoretical relativistic frames does not mean that Earth changes diameter lengths in various directions with the vector/velocity of all possible observers. This is universal knowledge which does not require a "legitimate reference citation." (Likewise, “Earth is nearly spherical, not flat as historically believed” needs no citation.) Brews ohare touched on this above but was ignored by the editors here: “On a deeper level, the separation of measurement from what is measured is a concern. “ Obviously relativistic measurements can vary without the objects and distances measured changing accordingly. Will the editors here (besides DVdm!) PLEASE address this most basic philosophical issue as a valid criticism of relativity... before DVdm blocks me from contributing. Ps; There are many philosophers of science who level this same criticism and Ihave cited a few, but as per relativity's "Catch 22," no one who criticizes relativity can get credentials as "legitimate critical source."LCcritic (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

LCcritic, as I have told you before, I cannot block you. You can only get yourself blocked by repeatedly adding your personal unsourced analysis to articles, and by using article talk pages as soapboxes to vent your personal views on matters. Please have another very careful look at wp:ICANTHEARYOU. - DVdm (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The catch twenty-two is not our problem though. From our policy page at wp:undue: From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Practically all hardcore physicists embrace the relativistic conflation of space and time, which has so rooted itself so deeply that any criticism of it is derided by the instrumentalist's embracement of an invariant lightspeed pedestal. From a research perspective, going against this is difficult, but potentially rewarding, but not with respect to editing Wikipedia without the prerequisite reliable sources. Note also that Wikipedia, like science, is also a-work-in-progress. Jimbo's challenge is crucial and necessary and for which I know of no exceptions because otherwise the encyclopedia gets burdened by all sorts of bogus cruft. --Modocc (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

DVdm, You falsely characterize my editorial criticisms as "adding your personal unsourced analysis to articles, and by using article talk pages as soapboxes to vent your personal views on matters." As I said, there are a multitude of critics with similar criticisms, not "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." The very fact that they (we) are critics disqualifies them from even having a voice as critics (the "Catch 22") in this article or, ironically, even in the "Criticism of Relativity section, so they are, de-facto, not allowed as "sources" and therefore have no voice even as a very vocal and widespread community of relativity critics. These rules are made by the "hardcore physicists" whom Modocc mentioned, so even respected philosophers of science are not allowed as sources, even in the Philosophical Criticisms subsection here. I was forbidden to name again one such source. Even physicist Delbert Larson, renowned designer of particle accelerators is not allowed as a legitimate source, because he concluded that "There is no evidence for length contraction," therefore a critic; therefore rejected. Philosophically the most basic criticism, from realism, is not allowed in this article even though Einstein himself said, "... I am not a realist," and renowned mathematician and colleague of Einstein, Kurt Godel affirmed that relativity is based on idealism. I referenced in detail his well known article, "The Relationship Between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy," but my citation was rejected as technically insufficient. This is an "air tight lock down" against any and all criticism of relativity. Readers who depend on Wiki for information about relativity will have no idea that the "argument against" (from realism) is not even allowed here. Some encyclopedia! LCcritic (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Physicist Delbert Larson, renowned designer of particle accelerators", has some kind of perpetuum mobile machine on his website — see also this previous discussion with other contributors at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_November_4#Empirical_evidence_for_length_contraction.3F and again have a look at wp:ICANTHEARYOU. - DVdm (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

LCcritic. you are not improving your position by repeating your rhetoric. If there are a multitude of notable critics that can be cited, then you need to show that. As for Godel, what did you quote from him that was relevant here? --Modocc (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You can find the Godel part at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Criticism of relativity not allowed. Users JRSpriggs (talk · contribs) and Paradoctor (talk · contribs) took care of that. - DVdm (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DVDm's assessment of your behavior. Also, your behavior exhibits four of the five WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, i. e. it has been a pain in the ass so far. You have wasted my time and that of others, and there are no constructive edits to show for it. I recommend that you either get your act together or get out. Paradoctor (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Paradoctor, as a retired psychologist I must say that I am sorry for your metaphorical anal pain and wish I could help you get over it. (Not really sorry, butt it was your expression.) My best "constructive edits" were rejected by the editorial staff here because no critical discussion of relativity is allowed here. (Only "mainstream," even though that changes over time.) I am not at all concerned with "wasting (your) time." That complaint seemed quite egocentric (self important.) But the policy forbids hierarchy.? It also forbids criticism of relativity, even the most obviously ridiculous parts thereof. (A changing Earth diameter, for example.) LCcritic (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your "constructive" edits were rejected because they were not constructive according to our content policy. That you talk of "editorial staff" is clear proof that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Learn it or go away.

"no critical discussion of relativity is allowed here" I see you finally understand. Go elsewhere, there are enough fora out there where you can discuss and criticize to your heart's desire. Heck, create your own website, free webspace is just a web search away.

BTW, "psychologist"? I thought you were a "university professor" teaching philosophy?

"complaint seemed quite egocentric" We're all unpaid volunteers here, so not wasting other's time is a matter of concern for us. Paradoctor (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Clear *proof* that I don't understand?" I understand that we are all editors here and, as distinguished from the general reader, we are the Wiki editorial staff. You nit pick. "Criticisms of Relativity" is a Wiki article in which no substantial, basic criticisms of relativity are allowed, because no such criticisms are considered "mainstream." The article should just say, "There are no legitimate criticisms of relativity," and quit the pretense that the article even addresses the title. From the subsection in this article, Philosophy of Physics: “Philosophy of physics is the study of the fundamental, philosophical questions underlying modern physics, the study of matter and energy and how they interact. The main questions concern the nature of space and time, atoms and atomism.” The fundamental philosophical question underlying SR is,‘Do differences in measurements from relativistic frames reflect differences in objects or distances measured?’ The question is not allowed. Sources based on realism are not allowed as the alternative to mainstream idealism, which insists that there is no “real world” independent of observation/measurement (like a "real" Earth, not changing shape with how it is measured.) My quote on Einstein's rejection a "real world" independent of measurement was not allowed. From the Philosophical criticisms section of this article: “ It was characteristic for many philosophical critics that they had insufficient knowledge of the mathematical and formal basis of relativity,[A 32] which lead to the criticisms often missing the heart of the matter.” I referenced one with a thorough knowledge of the latter, but it was rejected out of hand as not mainstream, and I was *forbidden* from mentioning that source again. (No hierarchy there!) The “heart of the matter” is how well conceptual models actually model “the real world” (which assumes there is one, so... rejected!) No ontology of "what space IS, what time IS, or what “spacetime” IS... is allowed, though that is the “heart of the matter.” Whatever "it" is is said to be curved by matter (how, exactly must not be asked)... which then "tells matter how to move." Again, how that works is ignored with the pretense that it is all there in the math and the imagined model of curved spacetime. Finally, I did teach university philosophy, AND I was a practicing psychologist. The two professions are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to think, insinuating that I am a liar. LCcritic (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is a great deal of criticism that has been leveled at relativity, but neither your credentials or comprehension of relativity and its criticisms are relevant here though, ironically, because we sometimes do template articles for "expert attention". But any such expert attention means providing content that we can verify to our collective satisfaction. Regarding this recent rejected addition to the philosophy of science article, it's unreferenced and you did not include examples of any of the notable or credentialed philosophers or scientists that hold or have held that view, thus it is wp:weasel worded and does not yet meet our criteria for inclusion. I'll note too, as others have, that we must also be careful not to engage in wp:synthesis when citing criticisms from different sources. -Modocc (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"we are the Wiki editorial staff" No, we're not, not even under a very broad understanding of "staff". And even if we were, including yourself renders the statement "rejected by the editorial staff" nonsensical, you could at most say "rejected by all editors I encountered so far". More evidence for a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

"insinuating that I am a liar" I'm not. If I think you lie, and if it is relevant, I'll clearly state as much. Interpreting a mere question asking for clarification as a personal attack goes against another rule that is quite important here.

I think we have reached the point where any further direct discussion must be considered fruitless. From now on, I will do the following:

• If I see I see any further discussion of the subject or similarly inappropriate edits on article talk pages, I will revert these edits, per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:talk page guidelines.
• If you wish to make a case that this is inappropriate, you can do so at my or your user talk page. If you do not want to do that, please head over to WP:dispute resolution. I'll gladly cooperate in any process you may care to begin.

Paradoctor (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi LCcritic. I looked at your contributions at Criticism of the theory of relativity. The way to get criticism of relativity into that article is to cite reliable, secondary sources. If there is an absence of secondary sources describing the criticism you raise, that absence will be reflected in our articles. In short, if you can't dig up an article that cites Godel, Linder, Larson and Mensa, then I agree that "further direct discussion must be considered fruitless." Garamond Lethet
c 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Induction

The section on induction is incomprehensible. I'm not going to put any effort into clarifying it to be blindly reverted. But, it does not state what the problem is and it comes across as a series of rambling sentences that conclude that the problem of induction is a concern for the philosophy of science. I'm willing to help, but I don't engage in contentious editing. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Include William James?

Should William James be listed on this page as a philosopher of science? I notice he is listed in his WP article as a philosopher, though not as a "philosopher of science". Some of his writings (e.g., "pluralistic universe") would certainly seem to bear on the boundaries of scientific knowing, and its relation to other modes of knowing. But does this count as "philosophy of science"?

On a related note, I see that John Dewey, another pragmatist philosopher, is currently included on this page, though when one does a search on his WP article, the phrase "philosophy of science" appears nowhere except in philosophy of science template that is stuck at the bottom of his article. -- Presearch (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There should not be a list of philosophers of science on this page. That's what the [[Category:Philosophers_of_science]] is for. William James does not currently appear there, so you could add that category to the William James page, or ask this question on the talk page there. -Hugetim ^(talk) 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I also removed the last trace of John Dewey. -Hugetim ^(talk) 01:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul plans

Over the next month, I am planning an overhaul along the following lines:

1. Y use the Featured Article Philosophy of Mind as a rough template for style and structure
2. Y remove the bulk of the See also section, transferring the information to either categories or the main body of the article
3. Y convert the Philosophy of particular sciences section into prose
4. Y remove the redundant References section and whittle the Further Reading section down to 10 or fewer classic references
5. Y combine several sections (Scientific realism and instrumentalism; Analysis and reductionism; Positivism and social science; Sociology, anthropology and economics of science; and Continental philosophy of science) into a new section with the title "Schools of thought" or some such, organized in a rough historical narrative

Please let me know if you disagree with any of these proposals or have other suggestions. -Hugetim ^(talk) 20:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC) check -hugeTim ^(talk)

Here are a couple additional plans:

6. Y Reorder the particular sciences from "hard" to "soft," as this puts the most closely related disciplines next to each other. I am not wedded to this scheme and would be fine with the reverse order, but here is what I have in mind: mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, psychology, economics, social science

7. Y Harmonize this article with the corresponding section of the Science article.

-Hugetim ^(talk) 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The intention behind this seems sensible, but I'd be wary of 'whittling down' such sources and references as the article has or had, until these become actual citations in the article with a sentence or two explaining the position of each one. It is startling that an article like this should be so poorly cited; philosophers of science should be able to cite chapter and verse for each theory, and this is likely to be from books, after all. (Guess it's ok to call the ref section footnotes; personally I keep the {{notelist}} in Notes and {{reflist}} in References, but I appreciate that HPS types are rebellious...) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Logical positivism provides a much better overview of the early history of the Philosophy of Science than does the current article (and it's much better cited, too). The current very brief mention needs to be expanded to show where Hempel and Popper were coming from - broadly, if you start from a Carnap-style positivism, believing you can verify, then Popper appears as a rebel (hard to believe now...), and Hempel's desire to show you can use deduction falls into place. The LP article could be raided for a summary and suitable refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Great find on the history in Logical positivism. The text will take considerable rearrangement and adaption to make it fit in this article, but I agree that the content and references are very useful.
• I hear your concern about removing references from an article that has too few sources in many sections, but please note that I have primarily been removing "Further reading" recommendations, specifically these (which I am second-guessing most after taking in your point) and these. Do you disagree with removing any of those specific references?
• Thank you for pointing out the difference between {{notelist}} and {{reflist}}. I had no idea. I am still a little confused about the best way to handle this (so feel free to rename and rearrange those sections as you like), but for now, I will restore the damage I did by removing the References section.

-Hugetim ^(talk) 23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, and glad to have helped. On the refs, I suspect the best thing will be to write the article using whatever you need and to trash the rest, so it doesn't matter when you remove the unused sources - it is probably impossible to guess which might come in handy (and people put books in there for many reasons; further reading lists are always spam-magnets). There are many ways of formatting notes and refs, all are allowed. To use notelist, just insert {{efn|This is a note...}} in the text; it's neat and easy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional plans:

1. Y Incorporate information from Scientific method and History of scientific method (and harmonize in the opposite direction as well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugetim (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Y Add citations where needed.
3. Y Expand sections where needed: currently history and economics
4. Y Overhaul the Major issues and Current approaches sections
5. Y Edit for flow and readability of the article as a whole
6. Y Revise lead to reflect revised article content

-Hugetim ^(talk) 15:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

marked completed items -Hugetim ^(talk) 16:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC) and again -Hugetim ^(talk) and again -hugeTim ^(talk) some more -hugeTim ^(talk) check -hugeTim ^(talk)

And done, for now. p.s. This was done as part of the February 2014 Core Contest. -hugeTim ^(talk) 04:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for a fresh assessment from the Philosophy Wikiproject. I am particularly interested in feedback on whether the article satisfies WP:NPOV since I may not be the best judge of it's current structure and lead. Otherwise, I plan to check the manual of style and reference layout guidelines and then submit it for Good Article review. -hugeTim ^(talk) 00:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Making instrumentalism relevant

I invite comments on a proposed revision of Instrumentalism, incorporating the conflicting roles of Popper and Dewey in defining the movement and its dependence on induction, and showing current practice of those roles. See talk: Instrumentalism, entries 20 and 21.TBR-qed (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Axiomatic assumptions

Many people like to opine about axiomatic assumptions and science, but any presentation of axiomatic assumptions here should probably be presented in the context of reliable sources on philosophy of science, with due weight to the topic within philosophy of science. For instance, citing undergraduate papers is giving undue weight to such sources. Likewise for random opining of particular (and not particularly notable) physicists and computer scientists on their websites. While Kuhn's notion of "paradigm" is related to the idea of axiomatic assumptions as a justification for science or overall approach to philosophy of science, it is clearly distinct and should be treated as such by this article. (There are already other sections treating Kuhn more accurately.) -hugeTim ^(talk) 02:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is something fishy about this list of axioms. Chen is an undergrad, writing on a Saint Anselm College website. Do we know if its articles are properly vetted? The piece seems to be pro-religion and anti-science. The college is Catholic and Benedictine, so perhaps the views of its undergrads are not necessarily suitable for this article, especially without saying where the views come from. The piece is poorly cited itself, and seems to be an opinion piece. But this may be because it is by an undergraduate and wasn't properly vetted. It says "science starts out with at least three assumptions that aren’t provable, it may be more rational to take science less seriously than religion, which starts out with zero"!

Item 1: The Vaccaro citations aren't done properly. Although Vaccaro is a scientist, the pieces appear to be uncited, unvetted opinions.

Item 2 has a missing ref. The Durak, Antoine Berke ref appears to be a blog.

Items 4 & 5 are not cited.

Item 6 has a bad citation, just taking the reader to an advertising website and not properly listed in the citations.

Myrvin (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask if it fits this: "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." Myrvin (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The 6 items come from Chen. The other citations support an item listed by Chen. Not sure why citations are not formatted properly. --JacobWeiser (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your problem with Item 1. Chen, probably not an atheist, says that accepting "Objective Reality exists" is a prerequisite for science. And Vaccaro, probably an atheist, says that accepting "Objective Reality exists" is a prerequisite for science. So, both sides of the issue agree with Item 1. Are they both disqualified because one is not an atheist and the other because she is an atheist?

And item 2, "Science deals with Objective Reality". Chen, probably not an atheist, says that accepting "Science deals with Objective Reality" is a requirement to do science. And both Sobottka and Durak, both definitely atheists, say the same thing. Are they all to be disqualify because they are or are not atheists?

The same appears to be with Item 3. Chen, probably not an atheist, says that accepting "Nature has regularity and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause" is a requirement for science. And Gould, definitely an atheist, says that accepting "Nature has regularity and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause" is a requirement for science. Are they both to be disqualified?

So, persons on both sides of the issue agree that there are assumptions needed before one does science. What's wrong with that? --JacobWeiser (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether an author is pro- or anti-religion - speaking of sides, etc. - is a red herring here. The question is whether a given source is a reliable source for a philosophy of science article. We all appear to agree that the section in question, as written by JacobWeiser, is based on the article by Chen, written when she was an undergraduate student. (As an aside, she was an student at Vanderbilt, not St. Anselm, as Myrvin implies above.[17]) The article was published in LYCEUM, "a publication of the Department of Philosophy at Saint Anselm College"[18].

Is that article an RS? Perusing the criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it seems not. To be specific, one of the criteria WP:SCHOLARSHIP provides for evaluating a journal is to check whether it is included in the relevant citation index. LYCEUM is not included in the The Philosopher's Index, which includes over 1600 philosophy journals[19]. It is also not included in the Thomson Reuters Journal List.[20] It is therefore not a reliable source for philosophy and all the material attributed to it should be removed from this article. Even if it were a reliable source in some minimal sense, devoting an entire subsection of a major article to the views expressed in one of its articles is undue weight. Authoritative sources such as textbooks are preferable for an article such as this, and textbooks are abundantly available. Is there any reason this article should have information or perspectives that cannot be cited to a philosophy of science textbook?

JacobWeiser, if Chen's views are appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry, shouldn't you be able to find a more reliable source expressing the same views? (p.s. I have been busy lately and infrequently able to participate in editing, so please do not interpret my silence as agreement.) -hugeTim ^(talk) 19:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now restored the pre-Chen text, adding an additional source and other editing. -hugeTim ^(talk) 22:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Kuhn

If you have the time, I request that you pull up a chair and lend me your audience, as I have a quibble to voice:

As the remainder of this opining shall be largely predicated upon it, we shall begin with a verbatim quote from this article:

"Kuhn challenged the established view that science achieves clear progress over time."

I am not here to question the veracity of this statement--in fact, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that it's true. My issue stems from the precise wording of this sentence, especially in relation to the preceding paragraph. As you may recall, the lede mentions Thomas Kuhn's book--a book which, admittedly, I have not read, although, as you will soon discover, that is impertinent to the point I am making--in a decidedly unequivocal manner, predicating the sentences that follow it upon that mentioning. And, well that's thoroughly unobjectionable, frankly. Where I take issue is with the abrupt nature in which this sentence is appended to the paragraph. Up to that point, it's passably cogent, but afterwards, it reads like a bit of a non-sequitur. So he challenged the view. Alright. Where? In the aforementioned book? Later on in his career? Perhaps earlier? We need to establish a chronology, here. If it wasn't in the book that he challenged this view, we should, at the very least, insert an 'additionally' at the beginning. I'm not sure if it's worthy of further elucidation in this article, but, as it stands, it breaks with the flow established by the preceding paragraph.

In fact, if you replace 'Kuhn' with 'He', I believe you would see my point even more clearly. And, speaking of clarity, I would like to rectify this.

Your thoughts? Ghost Lourde (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added a reference and a quote.Myrvin (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much! That'll do quite nicely. Splendid. I'm not sure if you need to reference it, though--it is the lede, after all. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Various types of commercial advertising...

"Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories."

What does this sentence have to do with anything? 24.57.218.21 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

2015.09: History, logical positivism, some sentences

Logical positivism became famed for vigorous scientific antirealism to purge science of talk about unobservable things—including causality, mechanism, and principles—although that goal has been exaggerated[who said this?].

I'm translating this article to Chinese. This sentence is so terrible .. could someone clarify what it means, using proper English?
And I think there are another few places across the article that remain such. Much appreciated! XD -- SzMithrandir (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, such revision of awkward or obscure wording would be very helpful. As for this particular sentence (which was copied verbatim from the start-class Logical positivism article), it means: "Logical positivism is commonly portrayed as taking the extreme position that scientific language should never refer to anything unobservable--even the seemingly core notions of causality, mechanism, and principles--but that is an exaggeration." -hugeTim ^(talk) 21:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hugetim: Thanks! Now I see the grammar of the sentence... "to purge science of talk about xx" means "to make science free of talk about xx"... Gees, such freedom of part-of-speech category is a bit .. unfriendly to orthodox grammar adherents XD -- SzMithrandir (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philosophy of science/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 17:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All right, review complete! The article does a great job of breaking down complex concepts, and I especially like the engaging prose style. Starting off a section with "Should science aim to determine ultimate truth, or are there questions that science cannot answer?" is much better than a dry declarative statement of the problem.

The main problem is that referencing is thin in some places. I've highlighted the issues I see below, and I'm putting the article on hold for a week.

1. Shouldn't Continental philosophy be decapitalized?
2. The sentence Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories seems out of place; I recommend removing it, or if you want to keep it at least providing a reference.
3. Should Deductive-Nomological model be decapitalized?
4. In the last sentence of "Scientific explanation," why is outcome-to-be-explained hyphenated? I think it could be changed to outcome to be explained.
5. History - need to explain significance of Alhazen; you explain his experimental method, but what was his impact on the philosophy of science?
6. Kuhn section - only one reference.
7. Coherentism - no references.
8. For the "Continental philosophy" section, there should be at least one reference per paragraph.
9. Need citation for Dennett quote - greedy reductionism is "bad science." Also need page number for Dennett quote on philosophy-free science.
10. Need references for sections on philosophy of mathematics, statistics, and physics.
11. Need page number of reference #40, since it is a specific quote from Kuhn.
12. I would also like a reference for the sentence about the science wars in the 1990s.
13. This, this, [this, and this appear to be dead links.

--Cerebellum (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you don't mind me changing your bullets to numbers for easier reference. (If you do, I will change them back.) 1-4, 11, and 13 were quick fixes. The rest will take a bit more work. -hugeTim ^(talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

6, 7, and 9 are done, as well. That leaves: 5, 8, 10, and 12. -hugeTim ^(talk) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've addressed all of the issues you highlighted now. Thank you, again, for your help improving the article. Is there anything else you see that it needs? -hugeTim ^(talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you for all the effort! Pass. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Let Thomas Kuhn set you adrift

Yea, the most important point about Thomas Kuhn was that he thought that knowledge was incomplete without subjectivity, and that subjectivity (in his view) is unreliable, therefore knowledge was always questionable. (which of course would be resolved when the subjective is considered to have the potential for the most reliable observation possible). Therefore, all the stuff about 'paradigms; should be taken out and cut down to "Thomas Kuhn showed that knowledge was incomplete without subjectivity, but that subjectivity (in his view) is unreliable, therefore knowledge was always questionable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This may be true, but is it original research? Is there a reference that makes this point? Thanks. -hugeTim ^(talk) 15:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)