User talk:AikBkj

Theory

Thanks - I genuinely appreciate your comment on my talk page. I was planning on responding to your comment on the evolution page, just to point out that I honestly do not believe that Kitscher's view of theory is over-represented on the theory article page. For what it is worth, I still believe popper dominates the page. Kitscher is well-regarded and more recent than Popper. It was not my intention to stir up controversy, only to add what I believe is an important and otherwise neglected view to the article. If it is not clear from what I added to the theory page, you should know that Kitscher does not reject the notion of falsification - he simply thinks that it is by itself inadequate for meaningful understanding of scientific theory. If you think this is not clear let me know and I will make some ore edits. Thanks. By the way, if this is indeed an area that matters much to you, I suggest when you have time that you read the essays by hempel and Quine (which I cited in the text I added) - I think you will find them interesting.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding I agree with the balance on the theory page considerably more than I did initially, even to the point, as you suggest, that Popper is over-represented. I say this conditionally in that there are several items which I still need to learn more about and then to process. Those are (1) the example that Uranus' orbit could falsify Newton's theory in Popper's thinking (I don't understand that as yet. I have a lot of experience with experiments that didn't work and it had nothing to do with the falsification of theory, LOL), (2) the arbitrary elements of Hawking and (3) I would like to come to grips with examples from the physical sciences of statements that are part of a theory but are not falsifiable. To the extent that these support the views of Kitcher, Hempel and Quine, I could see how one could have the perspective that Popper is over-represented. Happy editing. AikBkj (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you are right about the main directions to pursue. I think the Hempel and Quine articles are important. No philosopher doubts the importance of falsifiability in scientific research, and it is a genuine contribution of Popper's - but it was part of a larger argument he made about knoweldge in general, and the difference between inductive and deductive - or empirical and logical - knowledge and it is this larger argument that later (and by my unerstanding most if not all) philosophers of science came to reject. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comment on my page

It was nice to receive thanks for contribution to Theory, but I don't recall doing that!

Since my philosophy professor was David Stove, I'm inclined to agree with anyone who suggests Popper may be over-represented. You are familiar with his Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists? I've never picked up whether this book gained much international circulation.

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]