Why do we never discuss based Quine?
Because no one here has read him.
>>8169572
That doesn't usually stop us.
>>8169572
literally this. Trying to get this cucked continental board to discuss any significant analytic philosophers is like pulling teeth from their roots.
There are some really good essays on the legacy and originality of Quine's naturalized epistemology and the Duhem-Quine thesis in Zammito's book A Nice Derangement of Epistemes
Sometimes when I'm alone at home with my cat I'll say weird shit like "I'm gonna fuck you!" to her
>>8169592
>I regret I am obliged to revise my earlier review of this leaden book. I earlier wrote:
>"This book is an attack on the various studies I completed for my Masters in science and technology studies (STS) back in the 1980s, in which I learned that science was subject to sociological study. Zammito dismisses all that as post-modern pish-tosh, and asserts the inviolability of the sciences from criticism: science is right, end of story. All those idiots in humanities departments: fools, the lot of them!
>"I don't agree with him, but I think this is an excellent critique of the sociological critique of science, and should be read by any student of STS."
>I retract my earlier opinion: this is not an excellent critique. It is appalling. The further I get into this morass, the less I am inclined to continue. I pity the author's students, and I can only assume that they survive his lectures through the copious ingestion of illegal amphetamines. You need a PhD in STS before you can even start to read this molasses-slow piece of ponderosity. Alas, I only have a Masters, so I find it more than hard going.
>Each and every page is a pain to read. Every paragraph is riddled with scare quotes, italicised terms, and longer quotes; all clearly meant to intimidate the reader into bowing to the author's vast, vast learning. You don't understand me, little (wo)man, the author implicitly says? Then begone, and do not trouble your betters. Come back in a decade or two.
>A terrible example of the arrogant academic.
>2 of 9 people found this review helpful
>>8169592
>>8169611
Never even heard of this guy's book so I looked it up. First sentence of the book description:
>Since the 1950s, many philosophers of science have attacked positivism—the theory that scientific knowledge is grounded in objective reality.
Fail. That's literally the opposite of positivism.
Looked up his bio... "John H. Zammito is the John Antony Weir Professor of History at..." Fail #2. He's a fucking HISTORIAN -- of course he doesn't know shit.
I'm sure he's right about continenticuck contamination of "science studies", but the above is enough to discard the book.
>>8169638
What is 'positivism', then?
No external links, I want it in your own words.
>>8169611
Needlessly reactionary review. Zammito admits he's semi-polemical in the opening pages. And anyone with half a brain who got their degree in something SSK-related should know damn well that it's been fashionable for fifty fucking years, not only to jerk off over how there is no scientific realism, "all systems and models are just relative, maaaan!," blah blah blah, but to act as if this jerking off is original and cutting-edge every time.
The book is a MILD rebuke in the opposite direction. And I say this as someone who wrote his own Master's in something basically SSK (discourse analysis of scientific paradigms), so he's basically arguing against me.
>>8169638
Are you nuts? Do you know anything about the pedigree of positivism? Oh right, you don't know what HPS is.
>>8169574
AN HONEST MAN
Was Quine the shark jump of berets?
>>8169692
>What is 'positivism', then?
Positivism is precisely the denial of scientific realism.
>>8169724
>And anyone with half a brain who got their degree in something SSK-related should know damn well that it's been fashionable for fifty fucking years, not only to jerk off over how there is no scientific realism
Positivism is the opposite of scientific realism. The fact that you mention "degree in something SSK-related" is a dead giveaway. Nine times out of ten, "Sociology" of anything is going to be complete bullshit.
>And I say this as someone who wrote his own Master's in something basically SSK (discourse analysis of scientific paradigms)
Sounds like a bullshit degree. The whole enterprise should be committed to the flames.
>>8169866
>Positivism is the opposite of scientific realism.
This is why HPS exists. Ironically, the mistake you're making is precisely a misplaced reification.
Hope your CS exams went well.
>>8169941
>This is why HPS exists
What on earth are you trying to say? You might want to actually enroll in a philosophy course sometime, because your junk degree has given you a false sense of confidence.
>Ironically, the mistake you're making is precisely a misplaced reification.
You have no idea what reification is, conticuck.
>Hope your CS exams went well.
WTF? You are so clueless, it's painful.
Because everyone on this board is a pathetic, uneducatd 14 year old with no serious interest in any of the questions Quine asked or the tradition he worked in.
Also, no one has the patience to read Carnap, and it's pretty much pointless to study Quine without having first studied Carnap.
Also, Carnap is ten quadrillion times more based than anyone ever gives him credit for (he was still wrong about most things nevertheless)
its all webs I aint gotta explain shit
>>8170476
p good post actually
I for one think we should.
>>8170472
>Carnap is ten quadrillion times more based than anyone ever gives him credit for
Motivate.
>>8171232
Please start.
He's really interesting until he's not.
>>8169848
You're confusing positivism and neo-positivism. They aren't the same thing, save for the vague project of putting science on a pedestal.
>>8169821
Anyone? I don't want to have to ask /fa/.
>>8172504
He's really interesting until he's not.
>>8173170
Can you elaborate.
