I'm interested in the philosophy of mathematics and sciences. How would I go about learning more, and what should I read?
The "big" names are Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos
Kuhn is IMHO the most famous in laymen, but he vastly oversimplifies in Structure Of Scientific Revolutions
I'd read that, plus Popper's Logic Of Scientific Discovery, and For And Against method by Feyerabend/Lakatos
Popper is good. Kuhn is okay. Feyerabend is shit.
Mario Bunge is worth reading and covers them.
>>7519788
>Feyerabend is shit.
dems fighting words boyo
Ernst Mayr wrote a bit about philosophy of biology if you're into that, Lakatos wrote "Proofs and Reputations" about philosophy of mathematics
>>7519746
N I C K L A N D
I
C
K
L
A
N
D
Kant Prolegomena and Crtique of Pure Reason
Shapiro Philosophy of Mathematics
From my understanding, if you actually want to get into the philosophy of mathematics and the science you have to have a competent grasp of said mathematics and sciences.
If you don't your kinda screwed.
>>7519933
>your
you're
sorry
>>7519746
I would add Frege and Russell to what everyone else said, as they concentrate more heavily on mathematical philosophy
>>7519933
This guy gets it.
If you want some big fancy overviews of all the various positions then you should check out the Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Mathematics/Science. Very comprehensive and will provide enough information/citations for you to go explore the various avenues you found most interesting.
>>7519933
Doesn't it start from the philosophy? Can't you learn the fundamental thinking behind the subjects and then build upon that with facts, of which were formed from this philosophy?
>>7519948
Moreover, these things are interconnected, I believe you can learn either/or simultaneously because when both are combined they lead to the same broader understanding of said subjects.
>>7519948
>>7519955
I'm no philosopher of mathematics so take this with a grain of salt.
A lot of phil. of math deals with proofs, validity, set theory, etc. If you don't understand what it means for a system to be complete, sound, and compact, and you cannot demonstrate those on your own, you're gonna have a bad time reading phil. of math material. This is not to say you will get nothing out of these readings, you'll just be giving yourself a handicap.
Phil. of science is a bit more lenient in that you can discuss "what is evidence?" "what is scientific progress?" and other questions without having to know say Heisenberg's work the way you need to know say Hilbert's work to properly do phil of math.
>>7519977
Hm. I still would imagine you'd be able to google the hard facts when you're confused on an explanation, then you would be able to make the connections and understand the hard math that way. But, I could be wrong... thanks for the input anon.
>>7519746
The entire NCBI database
