Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:My favorite quote (Score 1, Insightful) 76

Heard it from a teacher who had heard it from Minsky, but it's probably not literal anymore, after all those years: consciousness is just a feedback loop.

He was truly one of the greats.

Calling consciousness 'just' a feedback loop is just a way of avoiding saying 'I don't understand what it is.'

Comment Re:Jeering From the Sidelines (Score 1) 383

That is a very good point in your second paragraph - the history of science and its methods (and also of philosophy) was not perceived by its participants in the way the story is now told, and the claims being made in this thread about the invention of the scientific method are a simplistic and self-serving reading of that history. I also take your point that one can argue that most of the 'fathers' of the scientific method were also practitioners, but making a big deal over what you call them is part of PopeRatzo et. als' fallacious argument. The interesting part of the history is what the players thought and did, not what labels we give them (some people might think I am joining in the same fallacy, but I am only participating in this thread to offer some counter-arguments.)

Comment Re:Jeering From the Sidelines (Score 1) 383

That's not at all what I said.

Then you jump on the coattails in your next sentence! You have also been straining mightily to imply it in the rest of your posts here, falling back on an undisputed but narrow factual claim when pressed - a near-perfect example of the Motte and Bailey fallacy. Your frequent invocation of the origins of the scientific method only underscores by contrast how little a role contemporary academic philosophy played through the scientific revolution - as I said in my reply to your 'architects' post, scientists were not waiting around for Popper et. al. to show them the way; the philosophers merely described what science was doing. And if you keep on insinuating that science is forever in the thrall of philosophy because of the origins of the scientific method, I will have to look up the name of that fallacy.

Comment Re:Trust the philosopher, my foot! (Score 1) 383

Do you think it's a dick-measuring contest?

Don't attribute your misunderstanding of the issue to me (I am guessing that you have misunderstood it because your examples are not relevant to the relationship between the scientific method and philosophy, but instead look like an attempt to claim an extra couple of mm for philosophy.)

As for ignorance, humanity had no idea of how much it did not know until science got going.

Comment Re:Jeering From the Sidelines (Score 2) 383

I have addressed your architects claim elsewhere: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Philosophers did indeed get science going, but there is a great deal of coattail-riding in suggesting that current science is dependent on, or a consequence of, current academic philosophy.

Comment Re:Trust the philosopher, my foot! (Score 3, Insightful) 383

But science has moved ahead of academic philosophy. Popper et. al. were, at best, describing how the science of their time and before was practiced, and if they had not been there, science would still have been the most amazingly productive human activity in history. It's not as if scientists were sitting around waiting for philosophers to figure out how to proceed.
 

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...