vetenskapsteori.se

AF Chalmers - What is this thing called Science?

Chapter 16 - Epilogue

 

 

Return to "Chalmers - Contents"

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

 

page

Chalmers

Comments

247

Chapter 16 - Epilogue

 

247

Chalmers raises three questions that he then answers himself.

Are my comments fantastically significant and interesting?
- Yes, absolutely!

247

1: Has Chalmers answered the question that forms the title of the book?

Unfortunately not. It is since about 300 years very well known what defines science.

But as Chalmers himself expresses it on p.172, a description is not sufficiently demanding a task to keep philosophers of science in business.

247

2: What is the relation between the historical examples given in the book and the philosophical thesis defended?

Philosophers are mostly focused on generalizations and rarely pay attention to about how something is (see also the previous comment).

Historical examples are much more interesting when the source is a historian, than when they emanate from a philosopher trying to justify his theses with examples.

247

3: How do the general claims made about science by the Bayesians and new experimentalists, discussed in chapters 12 and 13, relate to the case against method made in chapter 11?

Isn't it the case that if there is no general account of science then all further discussion of the issue is redundant?

This is obviously very important and interesting questions and we eagerly wait to hear Chalmers answering them.

247

Philosophy does not have the resources to provide a general account of science and scientific method.

This is, without doubt, completely clear after this thorough reading of Chalmers’ book.

 
 

 

 

Denna sida på Svenska

 

   
ver. 1.0