Philosophy of Science Thread

Is there any good introductory books to the philosophy of science. I know Veeky Forums usually has its anti-positivists, but I was wondering whether any of you have any books on the subject of science. Any discussion would be appreciated. Do I start with empiricism? Descartes? Or, is it better to read something a bit more contemporary?

Other urls found in this thread:

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=AE98D70D2A1B57BD57185144E94B7E2C
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=DA33CBC44DD5FC5182B26AB5B24335E5
plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/
ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/n/nietzsche/friedrich/n67j/book3.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Sauce me up OP

Chick I went to high school with, giving out her deets is a bit weird user 0.o

Victoria Justices sister: Madison Reed.

That looks nothing like her.

Don't have to believe me. But that's who it is.

I went to school with the girl I posted, she is not a model, just a hot gril.

Guess it's just a coincidence that they sort of look the same.

Don't be a faggot, I just need a quick one

Nar, you should rec me some books on phil of sci though.

I thought it was ontologicool

...

Cheers. Are these lectures at your uni?

>do I start with empiricism? Descartes?
No, you start with science. Any attempt of philosophizing about science without a strong foundation (actual knowledge of the given science) is beyond retarded. Seeing phil undergrads discuss "quantum physics from a philosophical point of view" makes my blood boil. R/ science and YouTube videos about physics do not give you the authority to "philosophize" about these topics. If you have any self respect and intellectual honesty you will stay away from this idiocy.

...

t. buttblasted r/science philosopher of physics. Fuck off shitface, you couldn't even pass a highschool tier physics exam.

What's the point of learning something if I haven't established a foundation for Knowledge? I'm a skeptic and solipsist, so it's not going to help if I just "learn science." I would probably do better at learning both at once.

>what is the point of learning something if I haven't established a foundation for knowledge?
>I am a skeptic and a solipsist
Grow up.

it is not hard to learn science because it is only math since scientists are too much of brainlets to talk about something and actually establish that maths is more than models created by rationalists.

Nice response. I'm trying to get out of it, but I don't feel like there's any justification for an outside world. Hence this thread.

where’s imre lakatos, pleb?

>murderer of Freud and Marx ideas

not sure about that

Real answer: Thomas Kuhn

I just finished "A Pocket Popper" and it was good enough to recommend

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=AE98D70D2A1B57BD57185144E94B7E2C

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=DA33CBC44DD5FC5182B26AB5B24335E5

Might want to apply your own advice and open a philosophy of science textbook before you spew your retarded opinions about a field you clearly know nothing about

...

Cheers.
BTFO'd!

feyerabend

Dianetics: the modern science of mental health by L Ron Hubbard

God damn her family has good genes

i miss ontologicool :(

Some random recommendations:

- For postpositivism and the crisis of positivism in general, Zamito's _A Nice Derangement of Epistemes_ is a good start.

- There are two kinds of philosophy of science, in my opinion: metaphysical-epistemological and discursive-epistemological. Metaphysical-e tries to study in what sense our scientific concepts really "touch" reality - the thing-in-itself. Discursive-e doesn't really care about that; what it cares about is how those shared conceptions of reality, of science, of efficacy, react with one another. To put it colloquially, it studies the coming and going of paradigms, how paradigms get stuck, how paradigms blind us, etc.

- Obviously the implications of Descartes' dualism for all discussion of matter. This is a VERY deep topic. Try _Dialectic of Enlightenment_. And just look into Cartesian mechanism, the reduction of matter to solely quantitative EXTENSION: plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/

- Obviously Bacon, and the reception of Bacon. As well as Hume, Locke, and the French reception of Locke especially among the philosophes and ideologues. Look into the origins and history of "probability" as a concept - and its replacement of certainty, of pure rational knowledge of essences outside of us.

- Newton. You should understand Newton's revolution in science, accomplished by "saving the appearances" - by refusing to explain the internal rational nature of matter, and only claiming to describe its operations mathematically. This is practically the foundation of all modern scientific thinking. Newton's technique was such a sensationthat everybody following him would say "I want to be the Newton of xyz," even in studies that weren't purely mechanical or material. Even in cultural studies!

- Kant. Kant's admiration of Newton and the relation of Kant's system to Newton's thought. Kant creates modern philosophy of science and modern philosophy in general, and he does it as a Newtonian project. Kant cements the problem of Cartesian dualism and matter as mere extension.

- Check out Smith's book on Gaston Bachelard. Bachelard's early period, before his phenomenological studies, is like the ultimate synthesis of the Kantian-Newtonian perspective with relation to Einstein's final and radical separation of "common sense" reality - of any possibility of our concepts and words and thoughts being realist (as opposed to nominalist) in nature - because Einstein finally cleaves the subject from the world and makes "true" description of the world PURELY abstract, PURELY mathematical. In doing this, Bachelard is synthesising the entire neo-Kantian tradition of philosophy of science - Mach, Poincare, Duhem, Helmholtz, many others. Bachelard kind of moves toward seeing this rarefied abstraction as the inner essence of the thing-in-itself, but not really.

- Read §112 here: ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/n/nietzsche/friedrich/n67j/book3.html

With this you hopefully have a basic framework for understanding the subject-object dualism and the various humiliations it inflicts on the noumenon, as well as the massive socio-cultural and historical byproducts of killing the world and shutting it permanently outside of humanity's playpen.

>Adelaide.
I'm OP and I go there. What the fuck user, thanks tho

>study says
and
>wikipedia says some study says
is the epistemology of the liberal

General Philosophy of Science:

Aristotle's Posterior Analytics and Physics
Francis Bacon's New Organon
Roger Bacon's Collected Writings
Koyre's Metaphysics and Measurement: Essays in Scientific Revolution
Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery
Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Feyerabend's Against Method
Patrick Suppe's Structure of Scientific Theories

Philosophy of quantum mechanics:

Quantum Mechanics and Experience - David Albert
Quantum Ontology - Peter Lewis
The Wave Function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics - Albert
The Emergent Multiverse - Wallace (some interesting thoughts on the relation between physics and metaphysics here)
Many Worlds? - Oxford Uni Press (collection of essays from prominent philosophers of physics)
Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem - McMullin and Cushing
Quantum Nonlocality: Metaphysical intimations of modern physics - Maudlin
Quantum Nonlocality and Reality - Cambridge Uni Press (collection of essays on the philosophy of nonlocality)
Particle Metaphysics - Falkenburg
How many lives has Schrodinger's cat? - David Lewis

Philosophy of General and Special Relativity:

A Primer on Determinism - Earman (introduces you to the Hole Argument in the philosophy of physics)
Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes - Earman (basically the only book youll find on philosophical issues raised by the existence of black holes and singularities)
Einstein's Genie: Spacetime out of the Bottle - Nerlich (philosophy of spacetime in the context of Einsteins shifting views of its ontology)
Ontology of Spacetime 1 and 2 - Dieks (collection of papers from a collaborative effort between physicists and philosophers on traditional problems in the philosophy of space and time in the context of relativity theory)
The Reign of Relativity - Ryckman (really interesting book on neo-kantian interpretations of relativity and their relevance today)
The Philosophy of Space and Time - Reichenbach
Foundations of Spacetime Theories - Minnesota Studies (old but relevant collection on the philosophy of spacetime as something distinct from the philosophy of space and time). Theres another book by michael friedman with this title that is also good.
Space, Time and Spacetime - Sklar

I cannot be fucking assed to continue but this should keep you busy to the point where you dont need to read anything on the philosophy of statistical thermodynamics or quantum gravity or cosmology or the metaphysics of science

>Is there any good introductory books to the philosophy of science.

There must be like a million. Every phil. of science professor at every good university probably writes his own to sell to his poor students. Just check the university in your country that is most specialised in this department and check what introductory book they uses.

Weirder than using her picture on a Veeky Forums literature thread?

It's for purely aesthetic reasons. You're probably a woman yourself if you have such reservations, and I'm not sure why one of you would be interested in literature.
Jks, reading A Room of One's Own now and regretting being such misogynist

Get off the internet and go hit that shit. There are more important things in life than philo of sci.

Im gay

fuck her until your're straight again

WHY?! WHY MUST YOU TORMENT ME SO WITH THESE JEZEBELS? My one single wish is to be left to my own asexual devices, free from the thorned grip of perverse tempation, unclouded or swayed in my noble search for intellectual playthings of the mind, yet by your hand I am endlessly titillated by these vixens with their prodigious hips and provocative figures. Can I never satiate this thirst, will I ever know the touch of a woman and enter between her loins? Will these hands ever feel a woman's swaying weight in their open palms? Will I ever know a plump, ruby pair of lips perched betwixt my shoulder and my ear, whispering "I want you, I want you now" in that chocolatey croon I know so well from dreamtime? Will my seed ever drip from her moistened hole, indicating the completed unity of our unhinged sexual impulses?

Life is a constant hell. Day in and out these tired red eyes glaze in some attempt to shield me from these images. I am floating in the blistering heat of my id's vacuum, castrated and blinded by my wretched libido. No wonder I resent women so.

Are you a dog? (White girls fuck dogs)

Whats with this bs copypasta every thread with a chick?

I heard elephants fuck indian girls btw

her as a high school friend
>you are gay.
like fuck you are, what a cop out.
put on some muscle and fuck that once in a lifetime. you gotta work hard to get those chances if yo average.

But I have no qualia. I'm a gay P zombie.

does it matter? idc what you think your philosophy is, your biology will remind you how you work seeing her naked in front of you.

Mind isn't physical, if I had one. Back to Veeky Forums with you, automaton.

test the hypothesis bitch, like i said idc what your philosophy is. your biological reaction will trump what you think you dont have.