(Work for) A Proper Arch for Science - Criticism of...

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

(Work for) A Proper Arch for Science - Criticism of...

Post by Aetixintro »

...Quine and Others
By me, Terje Lea, taken from my website: http://www.t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html wrote:I try to include the following three philosophers, Rudolf Carnap, Carl Hempel and Imre Lakatos, in this. I see this as furthering a kind of Logical Positivism without the verificationism. Rather one can replace it with confirmation of Hempel's. There are probably quite a few Philosophers of Science who have this approach and I like to add my voice to it.

Life-world as "Life-world in this sense is the accumulation of personal experiences from reality, possibly as much as from yourself internally up to this point as from outside your consciousness. Here I'm using it primarily as a view from the classical external world, that is, only experiences and views of reality are considered." to which I can add Descartes' affirmation of the self and that it underscores the importance of being in one's right mind as one sets out on the scientific enterprise. People may think of Neurath's ship, but my version says that one should work to make sense of the mystery of one's existence, one's life-world.

This project aims to make as little room for relativism, deviation, and stupidity as possible.

The first two targets are Quine's Indeterminacy of Translation and Two Dogmas of Empiricism. To begin with I can think of using the position of the Artificial Language Philosopher to solve Quine's issue with analyticity and arguing that a certain scope can make the case against total Indeterminacy. I have the sense, though, that Quine wishes to point out that more than one translation is possible. I think it's satisfactory to take out the possibility of total relativism here. I like to add that Quine's force-field is relativistic too and that my angle of life-world as one definite point of beginning is to be preferred.

I admit my knowledge of the three leading ideals and some of the opposition is lacking and I have to learn more before I can make some impact.

Edit: I write on this project in the spirit of a summary of history, an eclectic story, something entirely solid and new or a combination of these.

This is the bare beginning.
Thoughts?
Post Reply