Now that the dust has settled, do we know whether water is H_2O ?
what are other breakthroughs of logical positivism and other analytical schools ?
Not absolutely.
There's nothing wrong with knowledge, provided you keep in the back of your head that all of it is potentially fallible
Logical positivism is stupid and dead.
However science is pretty great because scientific truth is determined by something outside of humans so there can't be any disagreement.
>>468434
>something outside of humans
which is ?
>>468579
Objective reality.
>>468610
ya done it now bitch
>>468579
External reality
>>468617
You can laugh all you want but you can't build anything that demonstrably violates known physical laws. Even if you can imagine such a device in your scientifically illiterate brain, it will "mysteriously" fail to work as conceived when it is implemented in reality.
>>468642
I like this
>>468434
>knowledge may only be processed through experience and deductive reasoning
explain whats wrong with this
>>468793
>it can only be called knowledge if it can be derived empirically
>but don't ask me to experimentally prove this statement
>>468804
By noting that knowledge obtained empirically can be empirically shown to work
t. Americans on the moon
>>468434
>so there can't be any disagreement.
Do you know anything from history/sociology of science?
Have you ever been in /sci/? There is likely to be disagreement on almost everything.
The beauty is, it still works.
>>469875
>it still works.
what works ? if you think that science works, then tell us why you say this, because clearly nobody on earth know what the scientist do. and the scientist refuse to answer this question, thinking that this question is for philosophers.
>>465677
thoughts on this book ?
>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"
>Hawking and Mlodinow, in the chapter of their book called “The Theory of Everything,” quote Albert Einstein: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” In response, Hawking and Mlodinow offer this crashing banality: “The universe is comprehensible because it is governed by scientific laws; that is to say, its behavior can be modeled.” Later, the authors invite us to give ourselves a collective pat on the back: “The fact that we human beings — who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature — have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.” Great triumph or no, none of this addresses Einstein’s paradox, because no explanation is offered as to why our universe is “governed by scientific laws.”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
E. is right indeed. The gap has widened in a century. hawking is just like the dawkins of physics
people think that the foremost questions in science is what is space, time, temperature, quarks and so on. No, the sole crucial and urgent question is why the humanity is able to predict [more or less] through induction , itself formalized via the rules of inferences.
[and also, why the humanity believes that to offer some mechanical model is knowledge about the world]
>muh philosophy does not give us computers
>>478657
>sole crucial and urgent question is why the humanity is able to predict [more or less] through induction , itself formalized via the rules of inferences.
The fact that a brain designed to form and act upon models through experience went on to design and act upon models through experience isn't all that confusing. The implications are really special, but once you have all human brain and put millions of them working over time on the same thing it isn't a mystery where they got and how they got there.
The fundamental questions are how and why "laws" emerged, not how and why we figured them out.
>>469876
>implying
Why do you people get so upset that you weren't smart enough to get into science?
>>479974
Why do you people get upset that your inner life is too barren for you to get into humanities?
>>465677
>do we know whether water is H_2O
what the fuck does that even mean?
>>480013
the question is water h2o ? is meme in analytical philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>For externalists are typically committed to counting expressions as “synonymous” if they happen to be linked in the right way to the same external phenomena, even if a thinker couldn't realize that they are by reflection alone! Consequently, by at least the Fregean criterion, they would seem to be committed to counting as “analytic” many patently empirical sentences as “Water is H2O,” “Salt is NaCl” or “Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens,” since in each of these cases, something may co-vary in the relevant with the expression on one side of the identity if and only if it co-varies with the expression on the other (similar problems arise for teleosemantics)
>>480220
>Of course, an externalist might cheerfully just allow that some analytic truths, e.g., “water is H20,” are in fact “external” and subject to empirical (dis)confirmation. Such a view would actually comport well with an older philosophical tradition less interested in the meanings of our words and concepts, and more interested in the “essences” of the worldly phenomena they pick out. Locke (1690 [1975], II, 31, vi), for example, posited “real” essences of things rather along the lines resuscitated by Putnam (1975) and Kripke (1972 [1980]), the real essences being the conditions in the world independent of our thought that make something the thing it is, as being H2O makes something water, or (to take the striking examples of diseases noted by Putnam, 1962, being a the activation of a certain virus makes something polio). But, of course, such an external view would still dash the hopes of philosophers looking to the analytic to explain a priori knowledge (see Bealer 1987 and Jackson 1998 for strategies to assimilate such empirical cases to nevertheless a priori analysis). This, however, might not faze an externalist like Fodor (1998), who is concerned only to save intentional psychology, and might otherwise share Quine's scepticism about philosophers' appeals to the analytic and a priori.
