Who wants to discuss the book that ended Karl Popper and Falsifiability fags forever?

Who wants to discuss the book that ended Karl Popper and Falsifiability fags forever?

>implying it did

I don't think you realise that Kuhn's attack of methodological monism completely annihilates Popper.

Go back to STEM

>ended Karl Popper
elaborate

No it didn't.

People who find what Popper or Kuhn have to say deep or meaningful are generally incredibly stupid and shallow. Always kinda bothered me

Kuhn introduction of the coherence theory of truth into the literature was a huge step up, imo, even if it's not as good as pragmatism.

However, given that most scientists are brainlets who don't even know what hypothetico deductivism is, much less what the problems of that method might be, I'm not sure how much it did. I mean, science largely seems to be in the same state post Kuhn as it was pre-Kuhn, insofar as 99% of scientists still use Popper's method of science, while at the same time claiming they don't even have a philosophy of science, but are just acting "objectively" and "following the data."

Also, for the same reason, you're probably not going to get a very good discussion of this going on Veeky Forums. Most scientists are completely ignorant of the philosophy of science, and a large percentage of those are of the opinion philosophy is worthless generally.

I only like this book because the """"""""cognitive revolution""""""""" is a misnomer since it wasn't a revolution in the Kuhnian sense.

Who do you read?

He doesn't.

>Deleting your original post

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

reading it now. It's honestly extremely compelling. I'm wondering if the this is where the now ubiquitous phrase "paradigm shift" came from.

afaik it's not where it originally came from but Kuhn is the guy who made it such a popular phrase

I didn't delete, I'm guessing it offended some faggot mod.

sure
tl:dr?

No, "paradigm shift" comes from THE Dr. Sam Hyde.
(In all seriousness, I think "paradigm shift" was used by Marx?)

>It's honestly extremely compelling.

The Introduction itself fucking blows millions of plebs out.

Did you read it because of this thread?

You have to read it. It's written brilliantly.

Then why don't you give a response as to why you find Popper/Kuhn (or the philosophy of science in general?) asinine? Unless you just wanted to share your anecdotal experience with people who are into Popper and Kuhn.

I don't want to sound edgy but I thought it was all quite trivial
The concept of paradigms is rather obvious when you look at the history of physics and it's also the structure in which physics is taught. i.e. you start with classical mechanics, then you move on to analytical mechanics, then to quantum mechanics, etc

So when you do exactly what Kuhn did, except decades after he did it, and with the benefit of his ideas having seeped into the culture?
I'm sure it did.

>with the benefit of his ideas having seeped into the culture
I don't think they have. Or at least not into the culture that I come in contact with.
The concept of paradigms really isn't very deep, it's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain

I remember reading this years ago, and it blowing my mind in terms of thinking about how people think of the scientific field. What I mean is that alot of people tend to feel as tho that what gets accepted is wholly 100℅ because of the data and don't factor in the politics of it. Well worth the read imo.

Fish don't know they're in water. Everything is obvious after the fact.

Except I already realised it before I had even heard of Kuhn
I'm sure you know the sky is blue even when no one has explicitly told you

You don't understand what that saying means.

Explain it to me

As this guy said, you probably picked up unconsciously from the culture.

>thomas s. kuhn
literally who?

>you study classical mechanics
>you can solve problems within this framework
>at a certain point you get taught quantum mechanics
>you use it to solve different problems and you realise the methods you were previously taught only apply to some approximation
>this happens multiple times for different branches of physics
>you realise that physics works -exactly in the way you were taught- in paradigms
It's not fucking hard. The distinction between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, between thermodynamics and statistical physics, etc all existed before Kuhn's theory

Kuhn is pretty cool but the real bae is Feyerabebd

It seemed really interesting, but I never got past the first chapter. I still have it somewhere.

Should I read it?

Its a pretty good read. He captures and argues the idea of Normal Science phenomenally well, but his characterization of and argument for revolutionary science and the associated paradigm shifts really shows it age nowadays.

isn't this guy just applied Foucault really? if you've read that then it is kinda trivial. granted i've only read excerpts from kuhn and not this whole work so I may be missing key parts of it.

>“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”

>Falsifiability
babby's new buzzword

A guy I know who is much more well-versed than me in Philosophy of Science said that both Popper and Khun are obsolete and modern science philosophers flock to other stuff.

Can someone give me a Philosofy of Science 101 on what I should read, and what are the current accepted views?

>x is obvious to me after i read about x

Wow

Really makes ya think

>hah lets just not question our methods bro hah
>"Hey, Government, we need funding for X scientific project, it's very important!"
>"Sorry, STEMtard, we are investing in Alchemy today."
>"b-but it's not s-scientific!"
>"Please fuck off, Philosophyfag, we don't question our methods and who we fund."

What he means is that people may have progressed towards figures such as Paul Feyerabend.

Just read the philosophy of science wiki page or the history of the scientific method wiki page to get a brief overview.

Are they up-to-date though?

This argument shows how delusional and detached from reality philosofags are.

>W-without us people would be funding alchemy because they wouldn't be able to define what is science!

You know how the government decides what to fund? They fund what works. If alchemists come up with a new bomb then they'll get their funding. No one even cares about real science. They just care about making bigger bombs. It just so happens that real science also makes better bombs. How lucky.

This thinking is a trap though, because then only applied science would get funding instead of basic science - which is insustentable on the long run.

But there are people who care about other things, not only bombs. Governments do not fund pure mathematics, universities do. Why? The reason is simple. Universities compete in ranking and prestige. To compete in these things they need two things: the best students and the best researchers. Therefore universities hire researchers with famous research such that
1) The prestige of that researcher becomes prestige of the university
2) The best students coming out of the high school grind machine will want to study with this famous professor
3) The best students coming out of undergrad will want to do research under this famous professor

And more prestige=more money. That is all. This is why no one funded pure mathematics in the dark ages.

You do realize there's a difference between applicable science such as making CPUs and theoretical physics etc.?

Idiot!

The philosophers who write those books don't understand theoretical physics.

The philosophy of science is critical to science. The biases of the story making process are as much a limitation on our knowledge as our equipment (which itself is part of our representational story). If you cannot even conceive of the proper question because you think or have fooled yourself into believing you already have the answer, then you will never find the answer.
Popper and Kuhn (and Pierce's pragmatism) are right and wrong.
Popper is right that, until you try out your story, it can't be useful to be believed.
Kuhn is right that your desire or intent of your narrative limits the representation you make, and that representations are different narrative universes in the same way that some mathematical objects don't commute, or define multiplication. To get to a story that is useful to be believed, you have to shift your "paradigm" or your narrative universe around to its intent. (cont.)

(cont.)
But all philosophers and scientists are wrong because none of them have a philosophy that creates their philosophy. They all rely on "givens" outside of their story whose origin has to be taken on faith. This is the Platonic fallacy.
What Kuhn showed that Popper didn't, was that no story can hold all intents, but he didn’t go far enough.
In the end, the story is useful to be believed or it stops. Stories are recursions – the story making organ (the brain) is a sense organ that senses itself, then senses itself sensing itself. That is compounded by the presence of many “brains” – emotional, instinctual, inferential – that all compete for their story to be heard.
There is no dialectic that “proves” any thing; there is only a story that we approach recursively by comparing stories that aren’t told. Even action is a story, for if it weren't it would be indistinguishable from a story of randomness. Science does a great job of this because it is so careful about its representation, but is as guilty as any story in falling for the rhetoric of “reality” when all it ever has is “usefulness to be believed.”

This is why science falls for its rhetoric of logos in the dialectic myopia that so often drives science into dead ends. The givens are supported by the conclusions as much as the conclusions come from the givens, and the feelings of inference, trained in a Euclidian space are inherited in stories where they have no place. The Proxy of economics does not work like matter in a conservative space; the metric of distance does not work at relativistic velocities. Why then do you inherit deduction that simply is the feeling that big things can’t fit into small things?

In the end, all you have is a story – a representation for your desire that is either allowed by the World, or it stops.

They do understand the difference between instrumental applications of science and the theoretical, more "pure" or "basic" research, and how often people (even experts!) Fail to see that distinction and why that distinction matters.

t. I have a history degree and this was my focus

in 2017 people still believe that there is an objective reality

interesting post

I've often thought that much of science has become a "victim of its own success". the development of physics from newton to the standard model was a success the magnitude of which was completely unprecedented in human history. the danger of this lies in assuming that the techniques of the field can be mimicked to gain insight into other fields. in my opinion, the most flagrant offenders are economists, many of whom view mathematical sophistication as an end in itself, rather than the endpoint of an organic process that developed in tandem with increased experimental knowledge. string theory also seems to be going in this direction.

people forget that advanced math is a tool, not a sign of respectability or rigor, and i'm inclined to view the insufficient appreciation of this as one of the "dialectic myopias" that you mention. not to say that math should be completely dispensed with, but rather the practitioners should look at it with a critical eye. as an example, there is a famous paper by Dawes about what he calls "Improper Linear Models". Essentially, this is a linear regression, but instead of minimizing mean squared error, the coefficients are chosen by educated guesses on the part of the experimenter. He demonstrates that in some cases, such predictors perform as well or better than standard OLS predictors. The lesson, to me, is not that linear regression is useless; rather that most if not all of the utility of the method comes from the qualitative structure: that is, a postulated linear dependence on the independent variables (which, recall, are typically chosen in the first place by the experimenter's expectations, or just "common sense") as well as coefficients that seem "reasonable" to someone with domain-specific knowledge. The optimization procedure (minimizing MSE) is itself of comparatively little importance. In other words, most of the mileage comes from simply knowing what variables to compare in the first place.

I'm sure they don't understand quantum physical concepts.
So they claim they do not kneed quantum physicists to understand "reality", "belief", what "does happen" a "does not happen", etc.
The philosophy of science has resulted in no scientific advances, thus it is not useful to science.

Stephen King.

Does he say Popper is wrong in that book?

I find it hard to believe.